,\){© HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D B HON BLE SHR! DHIRENDRA MISHRA {& i HON BLE SHRIR N CHANDRAKAR JJ M Appellant : Bastar Shlkshan Samm registered Soctety (Under Somety Registration Act) Ramada Jagdalpur Through Dr Krls'hna Kumar Jha s/o Late Panchanan Jha aged about 77' years PreSIdent of Governmg Body o’f Somety & Rashtnya Higher ' Seccndary Schoo! Jagdalpur Distract Jagdalpur (CG) i Wnt A al No 77 of 2011 Pétitioner 1 Versus l Respondents 1'. State of Chhattlsgarh through the Secretary, Department of School Educatlon DKS Bhavan Mantralaya Ralpur (CG) 2. The Director Pubhc instructions Raipur Distnct Raipur (CG) 3. ‘M/s Urmila Acharya D/o Shri Mahesh Acharya D/o Shri Mahesh Acharya aged about 56 years R/o Oriyapara Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG) Present Shri Sumesh Bajai, GA for the State/respondents No 1 & 2 Shri PR Patankar counsel for the appellant Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3. ORAL JUDGMENT (3rd March, 201 1) Per“ Dhirendra Mishra J‘ ' Respondent No 3 was compulsorily retired by the appellant Vide order dated 23'“ September 2009 However Director, Public lnstructlons, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, allowed her appeal and the order of compulsory retirement was set aside and the writ petition preferred by the appellant r herein has been further dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide. / , 2; Shri Patanka‘r. learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that respondent No.3 preferred representation against the order of her compulsory retirement beyondjhe period of 30 days without any‘application for condonation of delay ln these ‘ Circumstances the representation itself was liable for dismissai on the ground of delay Respondent No 3 had completed 33 years of her servrce impugned order.” / l ‘ \\?( Iand her age was already 55 years and In these Circumsmnces the appeilant was well Withm 1ts right to retire her under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules after giving her three months' salary, and the l i xii l leamed single Judge erred in holding that Rule 56 was not applicable in the case of respondent No 3 The E Scrutmy Committee after vent‘catron of the confdentral report other‘ documents and material available on record, lrecommended for compulsory i retlrement and the Managing Committee accepted the recommendation and passed the order of compulsory retirement oif respondent No.3. The order‘ was:not stigmatic as no allegations were leveled against her. 8he wast Mr? ‘ compulsorily retired in public interest by giving her three months' salary 1 Since she accepted the payment of three months salary as per order dated ' V 23rd September 2009 the same constitutes deemed acquiescence on her. apart; and she is estopped from challenging her compulsory retirement. 3. 1 Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents No. :1, & 2/State supporting the impugned order submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that respondent No.3. is not a government employee and her service conditions are governed by the Adhlniyam. 1978 andi rules‘ framed thereunder and- the Fundamental Rule 56 had no l application in her case. ln the absence of any provision for compulsory _ Ly ; v retirement in the Adhiniyam, 1978 and rules framed thereunder, the compulsory retirement of respondent No.3 tantamounts to removal from service and the same is not permissible without following the due process of i law as prescribed In the Adhiniyam 1978 and Nryam 1983 4. € Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla learned counsel for respondent No 3/caveator submrts that respondent No 3 had earlier applied for review of the order of compulsory retirement and only thereafter she filed representation before respondent No.2, who is an appellate authority under . the Adhiniyam, 1978, and there is no delay in filing representation/appeal. Q?Q 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, 'perused the pieadings in the writ petition and documents appended therewith as also the impugned order. 6.; Learned Singie Judge, considering ti'iat there is no provision in the Adhiniyam, 1978 and rules framed thereuriider of compuisory retirement i before attaining the age of superannuation, hfeid that the petitioner could not z be removed from service by way of compulsory retirement before attaining the age of superannuation and without follo§wing the procedure prescribed under the Adhiniyam, 1978 and Niyam, 19833 i 7. a After closely examining the impugned order, we find no illegality or; infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is without, any substance,.the same deserves to be and is, aocordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/— RANGANATH CHANDRAKAR Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra x ' Judge N¥ ’