Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) No. 8461/2014 18th May, 2015 DR. M. VELAYUDHAN NAIR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.K.aggarwal, Adv. with Petitioner in person.
Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Rajinder Nishal and Mr. Asish Nishal, Advs. for R-2.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner who was working with the respondent no.2/National Museum Institute of History of Art, Conservation and Museology (Deemed University) as Professor (Conservation), seeks the relief that he should be retired not at the age of 62 years on 31.1.2013 but that he should be retired at 2015:DHC:4407 the age of 65 years in view of the circular dated 4.4.2007 of the University Grants Commission which attached therewith the circular dated 23.3.2007 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD).
2. A reading of the circular of the Ministry of HRD dated 23.3.2007 shows that the issue of increase of age of retirement is with respect to centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education under the Ministry of HRD i.e not to any other centrally funded institution in higher and technical education under any other ministry except the Ministry of HRD. Admittedly, the respondent no.2 is under the Ministry of Culture and not under the Ministry of HRD. Therefore, the circular dated 23.3.2007 of the Ministry of HRD will not ipso facto apply to the respondent no.2 which is under the Ministry of Culture of the Union of India/respondent no.1.
3. Petitioner in this case retired at the age of 62 years on 31.1.2013. Respondent no.1/Ministry of Culture only subsequently vide its decision dated 20.10.2014 enhanced the age of retirement to 65 years with prospective effect i.e if a person who retired prior to 20.10.2014, such a person/employee of the respondent no.2 would not be entitled to the benefit of higher retirement age up to 65 years.
4. It is in the exclusive privilege of the government to decide what should be the age of retirement and from when should the enhanced age of retirement be applicable. Courts do not substitute this opinion of the administration by changing the date fixed of retirement by the government as this Court is ill-equipped to decide the validity of facts with respect to what should be the age of retirement which is purely an administrative decision. It has been rightly pointed out in the counter affidavit of the respondent no.1 that the process of consultation with different departments takes time and only after various factors and various suggestions of different departments are considered including with respect to financial implications, that it is only thereafter that the issue of age of retirement is decided.
5. In view of the above, since the petitioner retired on 31.1.2013 at the age of 62 years, and the decision to enhance the age up to 65 years came into effect subsequently and prospectively from 20.10.2014, petitioner cannot get the benefit of higher age of retirement.
6. Dismissed. MAY 18, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib