Full Text
W.P.(C) 7130/2011
KRlSHAN GOPAL ..... Petitio Represented by: Dr.Sarabjit Sharma, Advocate
Ms.Arijita, Advocate
Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate Mr.MJ.Beg, Advocate for R-
Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocat
RAMA NAND VASHISTA ..... Petitio Represented by: Mr.Hemal Seth, Advocate wi
Ms.Santhana Lakshmi, Advoc
Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate w
Ms.Ritika Nagpal, Advocate f Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocat
OM PRAKASH SACHDEVA ..... Petitio Represented by: Mr.Hemal Seth, Advocate wit
WP.(C) 7/ 3012011 & connc.mallers Page 1 2013:DHC:7125-DB
Ms.Santhana Lakshmi, Adv
Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advoca Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate
Ms.Ritika Nagpal, Advocate Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advoca
MADAN LAL ..... Petiti Represented by: Mr.Hemal Seth, Advocate w
Ms.Santhana Lakshmi, Adv
Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advoca Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate w
Ms.Ritika Nagpal, Advocate 4.
M.M.A ANSARI ..... Petiti Represented by: Mr.Zeyaul Haque, Advocate
Mr.Ekram Ali Ansari, Advo
2.
WP.{C) 7130!20/l & connc.maflers Pag Mr.Sumeet Pushkama, Adv
Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advoc
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
01.10.2013 CM No.6403/2013 in W.p.eC) No.7130/2011
W.P.(C) Nos.1176/2013, 2576/2013, 2580/2013 & 4737/2013
ORDER
1. On the issue of a resolution dated June 30, 2008 enhanc superannuation of the Teaching staff in various universities up to 65 years, the Librarian Cadre as also the Cadre of Director o Education raised the issue of similar benefit not being accorded to It was urged that whereas the staff in Librarian Cadre and the Physical Education superannuate on attaining the age of 6 discrimination has followed.
2. Vide decision dated May 18,2012, this Court looked into t making process as per which age of superannuation of tea enhanced and not that of the Librarian Cadre and Directors o Education. The Court noted that certain circumstances which we for the decision making process were not considered and thus th making process was found to be requiring a re-Iook resulting i being passed on May 18, 2012, disposing of a batch of wr including W.P.(C) No.7130/2011 requiring the Universi Commission to reconsider the matter.
3. The matter has since been reconsidered by the Univers W P.(C) 7J30120Ii & connc.matters Pa Commission. As we are given to understand a decision has be August 29,2013.
4. A copy of the decision has been supplied to the learned the parties who appear as above.
5. W.P.(C) No.1176/2013, W.P.(C) No.2576/2013, No.2580/2013 and W.P.(C) No.4737/2013 have been filed cla relief as was claimc~ Krishan GopaL
6. Suffice it to record that unless the writ petitioners ch decision dated August 29, 2013, no practical or meaningful re granted to them. The reason being that with respect to W 1176/2013, W.P.(C) No.2576/2013, W.P.(C) No.2580/2013 a No.4737/2013 the only relief, as per the pleadings contained the we can grant is to follow the law declared by the Division Bench 2012; which would be meaningless today because in terms decision the University Grants Commission has reconsidered the
7. Learned counsel who appear for the petitioners concede and seek liberty to file a petition on the subject of parity to ch decision dated August 29, 2013, which we find maintains superannuation of the Librarian Cadre and the Director o Education Cadre at 62 years while retaining the same as 65 teachers.
8. Needless to state formalliberty need not be granted by us i the writ petitioners have a right to challenge the decision dated
2013.
9. Accordingly CM No.6403/2013, W.P.(C) No.1176/201 NO.2576/2013 and W.P.(C) NO.2580/2013 are dismissed as with WP.(C) 713012011 & COl1l1c.matlers P right reserved of the petitioners to challenge the decision date
2013.
10. As regards W.P.(C) No.4737/2013, since there is an operating in favour of the petitioner, we permit W.P.(C) No.473 withdrawn with liberty reserved to file a petition laying a cha decision dated August 29, 2013 but observing that the petit would be entitled 1.:1 the benefit of the interim order dated July his favour for a period of further 4 weeks from today.
11. No costs.
12. DASTI. PRAD~~~J ~.l
V. KAMESWAR