Smt. Clara Ainda vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 6 October, 2005
6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the Order dated 10.10.1991 at Annexure 3 would not be a government decision. It would merely be a communication by the Health Department to the Director of the Institute at a time when the age of retirement in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences would also have been only 58 years. It was next submitted that in any event the communication dated 10.10.1991 was confined to the similarity of service conditions on par with the All India Institute of Medical Sciences only with regard to appointment, promotions and pay scales. The words 'other conditions of service' cannot expand the meaning and scope to take in other service conditions apart from those mentioned or clarified in the preceding lines. The resolution of the Board of Directors at the 33rd meeting on 5.3.1991 and 6.3.1991 which would find echo in the communication dated 10.10.1991 would also 'have to be construed in the background of the resolutions of the Board which would cover only issues of promotion policy. It was thus submitted that neither does the order dated 10.10.1991 provide for inclusion of the age of retirement within the term 'other service conditions' and neither has the same been approved by the Board of Governors of the Institute. He further sought to rely upon the aforesaid judgment of Priyambada Singh, (supra) to submit that the instruction dated 10.10.1991 would be applicable only to non-technical posts and therefore the petitioner could not derive any advantage from the same since she held a technical post. The tenure of service and other conditions of service was an issue to be decided by the Institute by framing appropriate regulations under Section 27(e) of the IGIMS Act. If there be no such decision by the Governing Body with regard to the age of superannuation in the Institute, the Government would be competent to take such a decision and issue appropriate instructions under Section 24 of the IGIMS Act. But, the Government would have taken no such decision. The petitioner would therefore clearly be subject to superannuation at the age of 58 years.