Dr. R.N.Sharma (Ram Nivas Sharma) v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2694 of 2021 Dr. R.N.Sharma (Ram Nivas Sharma) S/o Late Shri Santoshi Lal Sharma Aged About 62 Years R/o G - 9, Agriculture Colony, Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Compound, Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Through Its Vice Chancellor, Krishak Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492021 ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Ravindra Sharma & Mr. Gary Mukhopadhayay, Advocates For State :

Ms. Akansha Jain, Dy. GA For Res. No.2 :

Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 21.06.2021

1. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be the premature retirement given to the petitioner at the age of 62 years.

2. According to the petitioner he has been working under the respondents as Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist since 1988 and that on the basis of his appointment he has also been taking classes under the respondent no.2 and as such he falls within the teaching cadre post. That under the guidelines of the University Grants Commission(UGC) the age of superannuation of the petitioner ought to had been 65 years. However, respondent no.2 have superannuated the petitioner on his attaining the

-2age of 62 years. Further contention of the learned Senior counsel is that the University respondent no.2 in the past has considered and enhanced the age of superannuation of similarly placed persons from 62 to 65 years and a few of them are still working under different colleges under the respondent no.2.

3. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to make a representation to the respondent no.2 in this regard supported with all relevant records and respondent no.2 in turn may be directed to consider and decide the said representation.

4. To the limited prayer of deciding the representation in accordance with the rules and guidelines governing the field, the respondent no.2 do not have any objection.

5. With the said submission by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to make representation at the earliest preferably within a period of 7 days. That on such representation being made the respondent no.2 shall consider the same in accordance with the rules and regulations and guidelines governing the field including the guidelines framed by the UGC from time to time in this regard at the earliest preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of representation by the petitioner.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit