HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.128 of 2005 (S/B) Dr. Lalita Prasad Pandey …….. Petitioner Versus Public Service Tribunal & others ..……Respondents Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents. Date : December 30th 2010 Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V. K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) It is contention of the petitioner that the statute pertaining to Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna, Garhwal University provides that if a teaching member of any affiliated college retires on or after 2nd July of a particular year, he shall be permitted to work till 30th June of the following year. It appears that the petitioner was permitted to work in the college where he was a lecturer up to 22nd December, 2001. Petitioner having not been permitted to work upto 30th June, 2002, he went before the Tribunal and claimed salary up to 30th June 2002. This claim of the petitioner having been rejected by the Tribunal, petitioner is before us. 2. A look at the statute, makes it abundantly clear that a teaching member has been permitted to work till 30th June of the following year only after taking into account the requirement of the students. It, therefore, implies in it that the person should serve until the session is over on 30th June. In the instant case, the college in question, where the petitioner was working was taken over by the State Government on 16th August 2001. Before that on 2nd August 2001, petitioner reached the age of 60 years. Sixty years was the age of superannuation in the college in which petitioner was working. If the petitioner was working in the college after the same was provincialized, petitioner could not work even for one day for the retirement age of a teaching member of a provincial college is 58 years. In that background, petitioner could not serve the college beyond 16th August 2001 even under the said statute of the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna, Garhwal University. He having being permitted to serve up to 22nd December 2001, the Tribunal rightly directed payment of remuneration of the petitioner up to that date. We, accordingly, found no fault in the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( V.K. Bist, J. ) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.12.2010 Arti