Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: prison administration in P.H.C.M.Gandhi vs The Chairman on 12 January, 2017Matching Fragments
17. The petitioner has contended that because of the failure on the part of the respondents, statutory and mandatory benefits of increase in age of retirement on superannuation, on attaining the age of 60 years, on par with the employees of the Andhra Pradesh cannot be deprived of. Hence the retirement age of 58 years fixed under Rule Part I (iii) 3 of the APCA Service Rules, 1997, is unconstitutional.
18. The Director of Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration, Vellore, the third respondent herein, in his counter affidavit has contended that, the petitioner has no locus standi, to file this writ petition, as he is not in service of the Institute. Further no employee of the Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration (APCA) is permitted to join any union, as per the Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration Employees Conduct Rules 1997 and as such no union is recognised by the Board of Management. For the above said reasons, respondents have submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
21. The Director of Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration, Vellore, the third respondent herein, has denied the contention of the petitioner of that retirement age of 58 years, was fixed, based on the retirement age fixed by the Andhra Pradesh Government, to Tamil Nadu employees. Retirement age of 58 years for the employees of Tamil Nadu, was decided by the Board, after deliberation and approved by the participating states.
22. The respondents have contended that the retirement of age of employees of the participating State Governments or Central Government, is not binding on the Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration, as the Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration is a non Governmental agency, with its own Service Rules, approved by the Participating States.
30. Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration Service Rules 1997 approved by the State Governments are consolidation of the rules, implemented by the Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration with prospective effect and not retrospective, as contended by the petitioner. Earlier, Board of Management has adopted certain rules from the Participating States. Holidays notified by Tamil Nadu Government were followed, in respect of Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration employees. The Board of Management is the competent authority to take all the decisions pertaining to the efficient management of Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration.
35. The respondents have further stated that in a matter relating to implementation of reservation policy in W.P. No.11696 of 2000 filed by Mr.Thulasivanan, the then President of Regional Institute of Correctional Administration, Vellore, this court, vide order dated 13.7.2000 held that the Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration is not a Government Organization.
36. It is further submitted that in 1986, when the Board of Management sought to entrust audit of accounts of Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration to the Accountant General, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, it was opined by the latter that Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration has to be treated as an autonomous Institute, as the funds provided by the participating states to the Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration, are in the nature of grants. As per his opinion and advice, RICA was registered under the Societies Registration Act and auditing by the Accountant General was permitted on payment basis. Further, the employees of Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration, contribute to the Employees Provident Funds and not GPF, as done for the Government servants of Tamil Nadu State Government.