Leelamma v. M.G.M.Senior Secondry School And ANR.

/9 UM $W§L§ § n thewlemowgallm Bilasgur.

s w "L W.P;No....4?9§...2006 Petitioner / Lgelamma M., Aged 55 years, 'W/o G' Gevarghese RG'T. (111), R/o 6-B, Street 75, Sector VI, Bhilai, '

Tahsil and bismct- Durg (C.G.)

Versus

M.G,M. Senior Secondary School, Sector V1, Bhilai, Through d The Principal, M.G.M. Sr, Secondary School, Sector-VI, Bhilai, Distt, Durg (CG) Central Board of Secondary Education Through- The Secretary, Shiksha Kéndra, 2-Community Center, meet Vihax, Delhi- 110092.

Articles 2267227 of The Censtitution 0f 1min Writ Petition Under issu'ance 0f WRIT nature MANDAMUS for other suitable writ or writs, order certiorari; Prohibition and or orders, direction or directions.

, x/f/J-i

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR < WP No.4599 of 2006 o Leelamma ---- Petitioner

Versus

- M.G.M.Senior Secondry School & Anr.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1:

Dr. N. K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vinod Deshmukh and Shri Vikram Sharma, Advocates S. B. :Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 28/02/201 7 Heard.

2.

This petition is directed against order dated 31-05-2000, by which, the petitioner L:

retired from service attaining age of 55 years. A short issue arises consideration this petition what would be age retirement petitioner, who working under No.1-school privileges of Central Board of Secondary Education. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by order dated 14-01-2010 passed in the case of two other teachers Smt. Aleykutty Kuriakose vs.

Central Board of Secondary Education & others and Smt.

J.

Satyalaxmi vs.

Central Board of Secondary Education & others, wherein it has been held that as per the contained Clause 3O Affiliation Bye-Laws, it was provided that every employee institution . shall retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation as per corresponding categories of employees of aided/unaided schools of the State/UT. concerned.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 disputed the aforesaid submission and submits that the respondent institution is minority institution, therefore, institution has constitutional immunity from such kind of provisions and it can lay down its own rules and regulations governing terms and conditions of services of the employees argument based relating retirement as has been held by this Court in the case of Smt. Aleykutty Kuriakose (supra), is liable to be rejected as it would be depend upon the institution concerned, which, the petitioner was working.

5.

ln the case Smt. Aleykutty Kuriakose (supra), this Court examined proposition of law, as below:- 11.

"The respondent No.4/school has neither claimed nor has established that it is protected under the provisions of Article 29 and 30 of the Constitution India.

It not claim No.4/School it a minority institution such, l cannot pursue myself go into constitutional protection aspect for want of pleadings, submission and necessary evidences. There no dispute No.4/school with Central Secondary Education.

Under bye-laws, affiliation defined in clause 1(1) which reads as under:

r "(i) "Affiliation" means formal enrolment of a school among list approved schools following prescribed/approved '

studies upto class Vlll as well as those 'preparing students according to prescribed courses for the Board's examinations." 12.

Clause 1(xxii) of the bye-laws defines "Private Unaided School" which reads as under:

"(xxii) "Private Unaided School"

means a school run by a Societyffrust duly constituted registered under Central/State Acts not getting any regular grantin-aid from any Government source(s)."

13.

Even if it is correct that the respondent No.4/school is not getting any aid from the State Government, clause 30 would be applicable with regard to the regulation of service condition of the employees of the school. Clause 30 of

@ the bye-laws reads as under:

"30. Retirement (1) Every employee shall retire from service on attaining the age superannuation per corresponding categories employees of aided/unaided schools of the State/UT concerned. (2) The Managing Committee may grant extension per rules of State/UT if the employee has no mental or physical disabilities and his/her services are beneficial to the Institution.

(3) The will be informed of such extension by SMC".

14.

Bare perusal of the above-stated provisions makes it clear that whether school aided or unaided, employees schools which are affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education would retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation as per the corresponding categories of employees of aided/unaided schools of the State/Union Territory concerned. It is further not in dispute that at the relevant time, the age of retirement of the teachers pursuant to the circular dated 05-1 1-1985, was 60 years as applicable to aided schools also. Thus, there is a clear departure/violation of clause 30 of the bye-laws.

f 15.

Reading all the provisions toge'ther and applying the same to the facts o case, it apparent impugned 06.9.1992 (Annexure 'P/5 W.P.No.3364 1993) order dated 06.05.1992 (Annexure P/2 W.P.No.1401 1994) whereby petitioners were directed retire attaining the age of 55 years was contrary to clause 30 of the bye-laws which is binding on all the affiliated schools.

16.

Reliance of Shri Anthony on a decision of Supreme Court in M.P. Vidyut Karmachari Sangh v.

M.P.

Electricity Board, (2004) SCC misplaced.

In present case, date retirement of the employee governed under clause 30 of the bye-laws.

In absence of the above-stated byeIaws, employer was free to fix the date of superannuation. Non-compliance of bye-laws may lead to cancellation of affiliation. The respondent No.4 has not produced rules or regulations governing retirement of the employees respondent No.4/school except the resolution ofthe governing body which ipso I facto may not be binding on the service conditions of the employees.

18.

The contention learned counsel appearing No.4/school that the petitioners could have been terminated even under the terms of the appointment which provides for removal with one month's notice or notice pay lieu of notice, rejected. Clause 6 of the terms and conditions clearly provides that the appointment ofthe petitioners or subject to the service rules and regulations including the conduct rules ofthe respondent No.4. 19.

Bare perusal definition clearly implies bye-laws or nature of rules which are binding on the parties governed by the bye-laws. The No.4/school admittedly with Central Secondary Education. The respondent No.4/school is under an obligation to comply with all bye-laws including clause 3O which provides for the age of superannuation."

ln view of above.

this petition also deserves be allowed accordingly allowed on the same terms and conditions stated in the order passed in the case of Smt. Aleykutty Kuriakose (supra).

Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge