HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1643 of 2005 Petitioner Ram Prakash Dixit Versus Respondents , The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh ) 8B others (SB: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J.) Shri Virendra Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDER (Oral) (Passed on this 5th day of March, 2010) The petitioner had filed this petition before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. After dissolution of the Tribunal, this matter was received on transfer to this Court and was registered as w.P.(S) No. 1643/2005. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 29.8.1997 (Annexure A/6) by which the proposal for extension of service of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner is also aggrieved by non—payment of salary, as in respect of the period during which he worked after the date of his retirement, no remuneration has been paid to him. The petitioner, while working as Deputy Director, Education, attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years and accordingly he‘was retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.1996. An order was issued on 1.1.1997 (Annexure A/ 2) by the Government, directing the respondent No.3 not p to retire the petitioner w.e.f. 31.12.1996 as the orders regarding grant of extension has been issued by the Secretary to the Chief Minister. By the said communication dated 1.1.1997 the recommendation/ M ' proposal for extension was sought. / \ m é The petitioner, in View of the aforesaid order dated 1.1.1997, continued until the impugned order dated 29.8.1997 was passed by which the proposal for grant of extension of service of the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allowed to continue even after his retirement, in View of the order dated 1.1.1997, as there was an order issued by the Secretary to the Chief Minister for extension of service of the petitioner for a period of one year and the proposal forhaextension was obtained. He further submits that in this View of the matter the respondents were duty bound to consider the same and pass necessary orders for extension. Learned counsel appearing .for the petitioner argued ‘that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. The further submission of learned counsel is that in any circumstances when the petitioner has worked on the post of Deputy Director, Education, until the proposal for extension was rejected, the petitioner is entitled to remuneration in respect of the entire period. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that the petitioner has no indefeasible right to claim extension in service after he attained the age of superannuation. Subsequent grant of extension/reappointment, if any, cannot ’be claimed as a matter of right. The case of the petitioner was considered and it was not found fit for grant of extension, which resulted into issue of the order dated 29.8.1997. It is submitted that the order dated 1.1.1997, in substance was only a communication, requiring the concerned authorities . \ to send recommendation . for extens1on . of the petitioner, in view of the policy and the same was required to be u \ MW considered by the competent authority. Since it was not found appropriate to give extension to the petitioner in service, the proposal was rejected. I have considered the rival contention of learned counsel appearing for the. parties and perused the record. The communication dated 1.1.1997, in substance, is not an order of extension but it only refers to a tentative decision taken and requires the concerned authority to send proposal recommending the extension. The order dated 29.8.1997, passed by the respondents/State shows that the proposal for extension was considered and the same was rejected. 10. i In the return it has been stated that after receiving all the documents sent by the Joint Director, School Education, Raipur, the proposal was considered and it was found that the petitioner was not entitled for further extension for a period of one year and therefore the proposal was rejected by the Government. The petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right the extension in service. Though, while continuing in service the petitioner is entitled to continue in service, except when he could be removed or dismissed from service, until he attains the age of superannuation. However, no such right continues after he attain the age of superannuation. The petitioner has not demonstrated with reference to any of the Govt. policy of extension/re—appointment that his case was not considered properly or there was an obligation on the respondents/State to necessarily grant extension to the petitioner. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the submission that the rejection of the proposal regarding the petitioner’s extension was, in any manner, illegal. W? 11. So far as the petitioner’s claim for grant of salary in respect of the period during which he has worked, the respondents have brought to the notice of the Court the undertaking given by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, wherein the petitioner has stated that he will continue till the end of the session after his retirement dated 31. 12.1996 and if he is not granted extension, he will not claim salary l or other allowances. 12. The undertaking given by the petitioner was operating only in respect of the period ending the session i.e. 1996—97. However, in respect of i the period, subsequent to that session, the petitioner was entitled for remuneration for the period has actually worked. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be paid salary along with admissible allowance in respect of the period he worked after the end of the session in question i.e. 1996—97. 13. The petition is accordingly, partly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/.— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge