Jagdish Chand Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1121310
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-16-2014
AppellantJagdish Chand
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
civil writ petition no.645 of 2014 {1} in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh date of decision: january 16, 2014 jagdish chand ...petitioner versus state of haryana & others ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice augustine george masih present: mr.harish mehla, advocate, for the petitioner. ***** augustine george masih, j.(oral) petitioner has approached this court impugning the order dated 17.12.2013 (annexure p-4) passed by the principal of the government girls middle school, village majra roran, karnal, whereby the petitioner has not been allowed to continue beyond 13.1.2013 as he had attained the age of 58 years.it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, being a guest faculty teacher, is not governed by any statutory rules and it is a contract, which is enuring between the petitioner and the respondents' department. his further contention is that guest faculty teachers have been allowed to continue in the light of the order passed by the hon'ble supreme court in civil appeal no.18434 of 2012, according to which guest faculty teachers.who are continuing in service, will continue till regular employment is made. he, on this basis, contends that the impugned order cannot sustain and deserves to be set-aside. kumar ramesh 2014.01.17 10:31 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh civil writ petition no.645 of 2014 {2} this contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that a person in employment of the government cannot continue beyond a period of 58 years.which is the age of superannuation for all categories of employees, except where a special order to that effect or a decision of the government is communicated. there is no such decision in the case of the petitioner. that part, the order of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of guest faculty teachers does not give a blanket right to guest faculty teachers to continue till the regular employees are appointed de hors the period for which an employee can continue in service, i.e., 58 years.the plea as raised by the counsel for the petitioner, thus, cannot be accepted. finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. january 16, 2014 ( augustine george masih ) ramesh judge kumar ramesh 2014.01.17 10:31 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

Civil Writ Petition No.645 of 2014 {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 16, 2014 Jagdish Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.Harish Mehla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Principal of the Government Girls Middle School, Village Majra Roran, Karnal, whereby the petitioner has not been allowed to continue beyond 13.1.2013 as he had attained the age of 58 yeaRs.It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, being a Guest Faculty Teacher, is not governed by any statutory rules and it is a contract, which is enuring between the petitioner and the respondents' department.

His further contention is that Guest Faculty Teachers have been allowed to continue in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.18434 of 2012, according to which Guest Faculty TeacheRs.who are continuing in service, will continue till regular employment is made.

He, on this basis, contends that the impugned order cannot sustain and deserves to be set-aside.

Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.17 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.645 of 2014 {2} This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that a person in employment of the Government cannot continue beyond a period of 58 yeaRs.which is the age of superannuation for all categories of employees, except where a special order to that effect or a decision of the Government is communicated.

There is no such decision in the case of the petitioner.

That part, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guest Faculty Teachers does not give a blanket right to Guest Faculty Teachers to continue till the regular employees are appointed de hors the period for which an employee can continue in service, i.e., 58 yeaRs.The plea as raised by the counsel for the petitioner, thus, cannot be accepted.

Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.

January 16, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) ramesh JUDGE Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.17 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh