LexNAVIN CHANDRA DHOUNDIYAL versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
NAVIN CHANDRA DHOUNDIYAL
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3493 of 2020)
OCTOBER 16, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Service Law: Appellants were working as Professors in various
disciplines in the respondent Kumaun University – They were
aggrieved by office order dated 21.12.2019 which set out their
respective dates of retirement (which were the last dates in the months
they attained the age of superannuation) – Appellants placed
reliance on Statute no.16.24 of the University, applicable to them
contending that they were entitled to continue beyond the last date
of month in which each of them attained the age of superannuation
till the “30th of June following” in terms of that provision – Held:
On a plain interpretation of Statute No. 16.24, including the proviso,
it is clearly apparent that firstly each teacher attains the age of
superannuation on completing 65 years {Statute No. 16.24 (1)} –
Secondly, no teacher who attains the age of superannuation has a
right or entitlement to re-employment; in fact, the opening expression
“No teacher” appears to rule out re-employment of superannuated
teachers {Statute No. 16.24 (2)} – Thirdly, and importantly the
proviso {to Statute 16.24 (2)} carves out an exception to the main
provision, inasmuch as it provides that a teacher whose “date of
superannuation does not fall on June 30, shall continue in service
till the end of the academic session, that is June 30, following and
will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately
following his superannuation till June, 30, following.” – The very
object and intent of the proviso to Statute No.16.24 is to avoid the
disruption caused by discontinuity of service of a teaching staff
employee or official mid-session – Therefore, the view in *Indu Singh
case, dealing with an identical statute, was correctly interpreted –
Appellants are entitled, consequently, to continue till the end of the
following June on re-employment – If any of them has been
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 572
572
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
superannuated, he or she shall be reinstated, with full salary for
the period they were out of employment, and allowed to continue
till the following June, on re-employment basis.
*Dr. Indu Singh v State of Uttarakhand.(2017) SCC
Online 1527; S.K. Rathi v Prem Hari Sharma (2001) 9
SCC 377; Raj Narain Pandey v Sant Prasad Tewari &
Ors [1973] 2 SCR 835 – relied on.
S. Kasi v State through Inspector of Police (2020) SCC
Online 529; Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd v
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (2009)
8 SCC 646 : [2009] 12 SCR 54; Central Board of
Dawoodi Bohra Community v State of Maharastra
(2005) 2 SCC 673 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 1054 –
referred to.
State Of U.P. v Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (2015) 6 ADJ
579 – approved.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 12 SCR 54
referred to
Para 6
[2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 1054
referred to
Para 6
(2001) 9 SCC 377
relied on
Para 6
[1973] 2 SCR 835
relied on
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3493
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2020 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition(S/B) No. 211 of 2020.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3494, 3495, 3496 and 3497 of 2020
Gaurav Gupta, Vikas Bahuguna, Ms. Swastik Dalai, Robin Singh
Rathore, Rajesh Kumar, Gaurav Goel, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Anuja
Pethia, Advs. for the appearing parties.
NAVIN CHANDRA DHOUNDIYAL v. STATE OF
UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
The Order of the Court was passed by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted. The parties were heard finally in these appeals.
The common question which arises for decision is as to the correct
interpretation of a condition in the respondent-University’s statutes
regarding the date of superannuation of its teachers.
2. All the appellants are working as Professors in various
disciplines, in the respondent Kumaun University (hereafter “the
University”). They are aggrieved by an office order dated 21.12.2019
which set out their respective dates of retirement (which were the last
dates in the months they attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 65 years).
The appellants relied on Statute No. 16.24 of the University, applicable
to them, contending that they were entitled to continue beyond the last
date of the month in which each of them attained the age of
superannuation, till the “30th of June following” in terms of that
provision. That statute rExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.