Service Law: Appellants were working as Professors in various disciplines in the respondent Kumaun University – They were aggrieved by office order dated 21.12.2019 which set out their respective dates of retirement (which were the last dates in the months they attained the age of superannuation) – Appellants placed reliance on Statute no.16.24 of the University, applicable to them contending that they were entitled to continue beyond the last date of month in which each of them attained the age of superannuation till the “30th of June following” in terms of that provision – Held: On a plain interpretation of Statute No. 16.24, including the proviso, it is clearly apparent that firstly each teacher attains the age of superannuation on completing 65 years {Statute No. 16.24 (1)} – Secondly, no teacher who attains the age of superannuation has a right or entitlement to re-employment; in fact, the opening expression “No teacher” appears to rule out re-employment of superannuated teachers {Statute No. 16.24 (2)} – Thirdly, and importantly the proviso {to Statute 16.24 (2)} carves out an exception to the main provision, inasmuch as it provides that a teacher whose “date of superannuation does not fall on June 30, shall continue in service till the end of the academic session, that is June 30, following and will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately following his superannuation till June, 30, following.” – The very object and intent of the proviso to Statute No.16.24 is to avoid the disruption caused by discontinuity of service of a teaching staff employee or official mid-session – Therefore, the view in *Indu Singh case, dealing with an identical statute, was correctly interpreted – Appellants are entitled, consequently, to continue till the end of the following June on re-employment – If any of them has been superannuated, he or she shall be reinstated, with full salary for the period they were out of employment, and allowed to continue till the following June, on re-employment basis.
*Dr. Indu Singh v State of Uttarakhand.(2017) SCC Online 1527; S.K. Rathi v Prem Hari Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 377; Raj Narain Pandey v Sant Prasad Tewari & Ors [1973] 2 SCR 835 – relied on.
S. Kasi v State through Inspector of Police (2020) SCC Online 529; Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd v Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (2009)
8 SCC 646 : [2009] 12 SCR 54; Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v State of Maharastra
(2005) 2 SCC 673 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 1054 –
referred to.
State Of U.P. v Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (2015) 6 ADJ
579 – approved.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.