Dr.Narahari Lenka v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.32891 of 2022 Dr. Narahari Lenka ....

Petitioner Mr. S. Roy, Advocate -versusState of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties Mr. B. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

15.02.2022 Order No.

03.

1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The petitioner challenges his illegal retirement in the post of Principal In-Charge, Dinabandhu Sahu Law College, Kendrapara vide order dated 11.09.2021.

3. The petitioner joined the said Law College on 07.01.1989. The Governing Body of the College has been approved by the Government in the Department of Higher Education and they are governed under the Odisha Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1991.

4. The petitioner joined as a full time Lecturer in Law pursuant to the order in Annexure-1, which was approved by the Governing Body in its proceeding dated 18.07.1991. The President of the Government Body vide his order dated 29.12.2017 was pleased to appoint the petitioner as the Principal in-charge of the College. He further submits that the said Governing Body has resolved to extend the age of superannuation of both teaching and nonteaching staffs of the College from 60 to 65 years. Accordingly, the

// 2 // salary of both teaching and non-teaching staff of the College was enhanced by 15% from July, 2019.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is quite evident that the resolution passed by the Governing Body has no legal force at all.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the President of the College has illegally issued a letter on 11.09.2021 stating that since the date of birth of the present petitioner is 02.04.1960, and he is due for superannuation after completion of 60 years of age. He completes 60 years on 30.04.2020 and he has over stayed at the post by 17 months. In view of such facts, he is forced to retire from service.

7. Since the petitioner's College is governed by the statute, rules and regulations of the Department of Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, the Governing Body cannot decide to enhance the age of retirement unilaterally without approval of the Government. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.

8. The writ petition is dismissed.

(S.K. Panigrahi) Judge pcd