ORDER
S.P. Khare, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 25-5-2004 (Annexure P-12) by which the petitioner has been retired on attaining the age of 60 years.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Scientist-SG in the pay scale of Rs. 5100-6300 in Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Trivandrum. By resolution dated 17-9-1987 respondent No. 1 Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya took a decision to have the services of the petitioner on deputation in this University as a Programme Director. In this resolution it is mentioned that the petitioner 'will be entitled to other facilities such as living accommodation, recognition as a teacher in appropriate category etc. in our University'. By letter dated 19-9-1987 (Annexure P-2) the Vice Chancellor of the University requested the Director, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Trivandrum to send the petitioner on deputation to this University. In this letter it is mentioned 'Shri S.K. Nema will have the rank of a Professor and enjoy the benefits and position of Head of the Department and in the proposed grade of Professor, i. e., Rs. 4500-7300'. There is a resolution of the executive council of the University dated 30-9-1989 to the effect that the petitioner may be absorbed in the Professors' scale alongwith all other benefits admissible to any other Professors in the University. Thereafter by letter dated 30-11-1989 (Annexure P-4) the petitioner was absorbed in the services of the University as a Programme Director in the Professors' scale, i.e., 4500-7300 along with 'all other benefits available to any other Professor in this University'. By letter dated 28-3-2003 (Annexure P-7) the petitioner was retired from 30-1-2004 on attaining the age of 60 years. His date of birth is 13-1-1944. This order was cancelled by order dated 1-10-2003 (Annexure P-9) and the petitioner was permitted to continue after 60 years of age. Again there was a somersault and by the impugned order dated 25-5-2004 (Annexure P-12) the petitioner has been retired from that date. It has been stated in this order that he would not continue upto the age of 62 years.
3. The petitioner's case is that he is entitled to continue in the service of the University upto the age of 62 years on the basis of the orders and the resolutions referred above. On the other hand it is stated in the return of the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner was not in conformity with Section 49 of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. It is also stated that the petitioner never worked as a Professor and, therefore, the benefit of the retirement age applicable to the Professors can not be extended to him.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to continue in the service of the University upto the date of attaining the age of 62 years. As mentioned above in the resolution dated 17-9-1987 (Annexure P-1) it has been clearly stated that the petitioner would be recognized as a teacher in appropriate category in the University. In the letter dated 19-9-1987 (Annexure P-2) the Vice Chancellor has written to the Director, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre that the petitioner would have the rank of a Professor and enjoy the benefits and position of Head of the Department and in the proposed grade of Professor, i.e., Rs. 4500-7300. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the petitioner also. Finally in the letter dated 30-11-1989 (Annexure P-4) of the University addressed to the petitioner it has been made crystal clear that the absorption of the petitioner in the University as a Programme Director is in the Professors' scale alongwith 'all other benefits available to any other Professor in the University'. The word 'benefit' has a very wide connotation. It would definitely include the retirement age also. This appears to be the reason that the University by order dated 1-10-2003 (Annexure P-9) cancelled the earlier order dated 28-3-2003 (Annexure P-7) and allowed the petitioner to continue in the service after 60 years of age. It is not known why there is a swinging of the pendulum from one side to the other by the authorities of the University. On a fair consideration of the arguments of both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 25-5-2004 (Annexure P-12) is illegal and void.
5. In the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25-5-2004 (Annexure P-12) is quashed and it is declared that the petitioner is continuing in the service of the University and his age of superannuation will be 62 years. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post which he was holding before the impugned order was passed.