/ '8iiji^^s5^870: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT APPEAL N0 . \5^r 120Q9 ^cy i (WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION I O'? CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT fAPPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT 2006) APPELLANTS (RESPONDENTS) ..^-^^ <v^y ..<^'-^!& / ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, ST/SC Development Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Director, ST/SC Development Department, Raipur (C.G.) NON-APPELLANT PETITIONER "*<»,.. '•^.WiSW^- VERSUS U.D. Patni, Retd. Asstt. Comniissioner, (Organiser), S/o - Late Preru Vallabh Patni, Aged about - 69 years, R/o - HIG-19, Arya Colony, Tifra, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ARISING OUT_OF_THE ORDER PASSED BY SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE_GQ_URT IN WRIT PETITION 3^E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Coram: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar. JJ WritADpeal No. 157 of 2009 State of Chhattisgarh & another Vs. U.D. Patni JUDGMENT Hon'ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar ^ For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^fi Post for Judgment •/S /09/2009 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Coram: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar, JJ. WritADpeal No. 157 of 2009 APPELLANTS NON-APPELANT 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, ST/SC Development Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, ST/SC Development Department, Raipur (C.G.) Vs. U.D. Patni, Retd. Asstt. Commissioner (Organiser). S/o Late Prem Vallabh Patni, Aged about - 69 years, R/o - HIG-19, Arya Colony, Tifra, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT. 2006 Appearance: Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer, for the appellants/State. Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT (/^-.09.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by ^h: Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Being aggrieved with the order dated 28 of July, 2006 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1353/2005 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the State has filed this Writ Appeal. I'TT" g^ WritAopealNo. 157 of 2009 (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- \3I Respondent herein/petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher vide order dated 8.11.1954. He was promoted to the post of Head Master by order dated 10.2.1960. Later on, he was further promoted to the post of Circle Organiser by order dated 25.5.1963 and thereafter to the post of Assistant Commissioner by order dated 26.4.1994. He was retired on 31.12.1995 after completion of 58 years of age. Respondent contended before the Writ Court that he was entitled to continue in service upto 60 years of hisage as per provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 (FR 56) as he was a Teacher, therefore, his superannuation on completion of 58 years was not in accordance with law. The State opposed the petition without disputing the provisions of FR-56. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and held that the age of superannuation in case of the respondent would be 60 years, therefore, he would be treated as retired at the age of 60 years and he would be entitled to all the consequential benefits oftwo years, including revisionof pension, gratuity etc. The learned Single Judge further directed that for granting the said relief, the process be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order impugned. f3) -Mr. Vinany Harit, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants/State wouldsubmit that since the respondent/ petitioner was promoted to an administrative post of Circle Organiser and thereafter to the post of Assistant Commissioner and he retired from the administrative post, therefore, he would not be a Teacher within the WntAppealNp._157of2005 meaning of FR-56 and he would be retiring at the age of 58 years like the other government servants. (4) Therefore, the question raised before us is : (i) Whether the respondent was a "Teacher" within the meaning of FR-56, therefore, his age of superannuation was 60 years ? or, (ii) By virtue of retiring from an administrative post, he was not a teacher and his age of superannuation was 58 years ? (5) The Fundamental Rules 56 (FR 56) at the relevant time, is quoted herein below:- "56. Age of superannuation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), every Government servant other than a class IV Government servant shall retire fromservice on the afternoon of the last day of the montb on which he attains the age of fifty-eight years: Provided that a Government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the proceeding month on attaining the age of fifty-eight years; Provided further that scientific, technical and other personnel having special or expert knowledge in any field may, with the sanction of the competent authority, be given extension of service beyond the age of fifty-eight years subject to their p'hysical fitness and suitability for work, but such extension shall not ordinarily be beyond the age ofsixty years. ^K< {(1-a) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), every Government teacher shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the ageof sixty years; t^:'S';T^':7"T?'"13RHS1 'W) WritAppealNo. 157 of 2009 Provided that a Government teacher whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years.} {Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-rule "Teacher" means a government servant, by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in an educational institution run by the Government including technical or medical education institution in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to such appointment and shall also include the teacher who is appointed to an administrative post by promotion or otherwise and who has been engaged in teaching for not less than twenty years provided he holds a lien on a post in the concerned School/Collegiate/Technical/Medical education service." (6) A perusal of the above Rule would show that the word "Teacher" has been defined for the purpose of the said Rule in the Explanation appended to this Rule. This Explanation can be divided into two parts. First part i.e., the earlier part clearly provides that a Government Servant who has been "appointed" as a teacher in any educational institution, including the technical and medical educational institutions, for the purpose of teaching under the prevailing rules applicable for appointment to the said post shall be a "teacher" for the purpose of this rule. The second part, which is the later part of the Explanation, further provides that it shall also include such teachers who have been appointed on administrative posts either by promotion or otherwise and who were engaged in teaching for a minimum period of 20 years and have also a lien over the post in their concerned educational institutions. 's &,. ^ °%. i I1 Writ AppealNo. 157 of 2009 ^E< (7) It has not been disputed before us that the respondent/petitioner was initially appointed as a Teacher and later on, after working as a Teacher and Head Master for about 9 years, he was promoted to the post of Circle Organiser. Therefore, the case of the respondent/petitioner would be covered under the first part of the Explanation appended to FR- 56. The definition of the "Teacher" in the Explanation appended to FR- 56 is exclusive and defining particular category of employees who shall only be deemed to be a Teacher and first part of the Explanation is independent of the second part. (8) In the present case, admittedly, the respondenVpetitioner was appointed as a "Teacher", he worked as a Teacher for about 9 years and thereafter he was promoted to an administrative post, therefore, according to the first part of Explanation to FR-56, he had to retire at the age of 60 years and not at the age of 58 years as he was a Teacher for the purpose of FR-56. (9) Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (10) The appeal has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (11) No order as to cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge vatti