Delhi High Court
Banwari Lal Mahajan vs Municipal Corpn. Of Delhi on 9 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999IIIAD(DELHI)382, 79(1999)DLT282, 1999(49)DRJ527
Author: K. Ramamoorthy
Bench: K. Ramamoorthy
ORDER K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner, who was working as School Inspector, has challenged the order dated 31.5.1988 superannuating him on attaining the age of 58 years while according to the petitioner, he was entitled to continue until he attained the age of 60 years.
2. The facts necessary for appreciating the question involved could be stated very tersely in the following terms:
Till the 30th of June, 1970, the petitioner was working as a Language Teacher and w.e.f. 1.7.1970, he was transferred to the Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration. On the 3rd of November, 1973, the petitioner came back to the service of the respondent on promotion. With effect from the 2nd of November, 1973, the petitioner was working as a School Inspector.
3. According to the respondent, the retirement age of teachers is 58 years and the petitioner was working as School Inspector, and, therefore, the order dated 31.5.1988 is in accordance with law.
4. The point raised by the petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court dated 15.2.1990 in "G.K. Makhija Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi"(Civil Writ No.276 of 1989). The Division Bench, dealing with the point, held:-
The point raised by the petitioner pertaining to these two prayers has been decided on 22nd May, 1985 by a Division Bench of this Court in CW.1365 of 1984, Smt. Sheela Puri Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi appealed to the Supreme Court against the judgment and order and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, being C.A.8054 of 1985 on 2nd December, 1988. An application for review moved thereafter by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was rejected by the Supreme Court on 12th January, 1989.
A Division Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated 27th February, 1989 in Civil Writ 1880 of 1986, Banwari Lal Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi followed the decision in Sheela Puri's case (supra).
The said decision was again challenged by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the Supreme Court. On 18th July, 1989, the Supreme Court passed the following order:-
"Counsel for the petitioners states that the respondents in each of these appeals have since retired at the age of 60 years and, therefore, the question of superannuation whether it is 58 or 60 need not be gone into. We however feel that that question may be left open and the decision in Sheela Puri's case should not be held against the management in all such cases. We accept the submission of the learned counsel and keep the question open without expressing any opinion. With these observations, the petitions are dismissed."
On 4th August, 19889, in Civil Writ 2770 of 1988, Kanta Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, a learned Single Judge of this Court, Mr. Justice N.N. Goswamy had occasion to refer to the above quoted observations and dismissal of the special leave petition. He observed:
"On consideration of this observation I am still of the opinion that as far as this Court is concerned, it is bound by the decision in Sheela Puri's case as also by two Benches of this Court. It is no doubt open to the Supreme Court to review their judgment in Sheela Puri's case and when and if the same is done this court will respectfully follow the same."
Mr. Nandrajog submits that the question is not only left open in the Supreme Court but it is also left open in the High Court. We do not agree with his contention and are in agreement with the opinion of Mr. Justice N.N. Goswamy.
Consequently, it is apparent that as far as this Court is concerned, a person who is either a teacher or an Inspector of Schools will superannuate at the age of 60 and not retire at the age of 58."
5. In view of this, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the petitioner is declared to have been continued in service till 31.5.90 and he shall be granted all the consequential benefits.
6. The order dated 31.5.1988 is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.