# Raja Ram Verma v. Union of India through Secretary and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 390
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-02-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54346 of 2000
- **Bench:** S.R. Singh, D.R. Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raja-ram-verma-v-union-of-india-through-secretary-and-others-39637
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 73- Policy
decisions
taken
by
the
Board
of
Governors
pursuant
to
the
various
decisions
of
the
Department
of
Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Development,
Government
of
India-
Directors of the Indian Institutes of the
country in their meeting held on 3.5.99
took a policy decision that the age of
superannuation of those officers- who
were to be superannuated on attaining
the age of 58 years would be 60 years
and that of the officers whose age of
retirement was initially 60 years under
the service rules would now be 62 years.
The
Government
orders
referred
to
hereinabove had the force of law by
virtue of Article 73 of the Constitution of
India.

(Held in para 7)

The Government decisions apply to the
Institute inasmuch as nothing in the Act
precludes the Board of Governors to take
policy decision to enhance the age of
retirement of the employees of the
Institute. I.I.T. Kanpur though is an
autonomous
body
is
under
the
administrative control of the Ministry of
Human
Resource
Development.
The
policy decision taken by the Board does
not appear to have been reversed in the
light
of
clarificatory
letter
dated
16.2.2000 issued by the Government of
India.
Case referred-

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
390
only according to the syllabus prescribed
by the Board and there is no violation of
any of the provisions of Copyright Act.
Thus the impugned First Information
Report does not disclose commission of
any cognizable offence against the
petitioners and is liable to be quashed.

15. In the result the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned F.I.R. registered
as Case Crime No.317/2001 police
Station Transport Nagar, Meerut and
further proceedings on the basis of the
impugned first information report against
the petitioners are hereby quashed. The
Books seized by the opposite parties shall
be returned to the petitioners forthwith.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JULY 10, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.R. SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE D.R. CHAUDHARY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54346 of 2000

Raja Ram Verma

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Secretary and
others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.P. Sharma
Sri Shiv Nath Singh
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dinesh Kakkar
Sri S.N. Verma
Sri Yashwant Verma
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 73- Policy
decisions
taken
by
the
Board
of
Governors
pursuant
to
the
various
decisions
of
the
Department
of
Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Development,
Government
of
India-
Directors of the Indian Institutes of the
country in their meeting held on 3.5.99
took a policy decision that the age of
superannuation of those officers- who
were to be superannuated on attaining
the age of 58 years would be 60 years
and that of the officers whose age of
retirement was initially 60 years under
the service rules would now be 62 years.
The
Government
orders
referred
to
hereinabove had the force of law by
virtue of Article 73 of the Constitution of
India.

(Held in para 7)

The Government decisions apply to the
Institute inasmuch as nothing in the Act
precludes the Board of Governors to take
policy decision to enhance the age of
retirement of the employees of the
Institute. I.I.T. Kanpur though is an
autonomous
body
is
under
the
administrative control of the Ministry of
Human
Resource
Development.
The
policy decision taken by the Board does
not appear to have been reversed in the
light
of
clarificatory
letter
dated
16.2.2000 issued by the Government of
India.
Case referred-

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.R. Singh, J.)

1. The petitioner who was appointed
Assistant Registrar, Indian Institute of
Technology,
Kanpur
(in
short
the
Institute) on 11.11.1983, has questioned
the legality of his superannuation at the
age of 60 years w.e.f. 31.12.2000 vide
impugned order dated July 17, 2000 (copy
of which has been annexed as annexure
no.11). A perusal of the impugned order
would show that the employees including
the petitioner, referred to therein, were
informed that they would be retiring from
2 All] Raja Ram Verma Vs. Union of India through Secretary and others
391
 the services of the Institute on the dates
noted against their names in column 7 as
per decision of the Board of Governors in
its meeting held on 22.5.2000. The
petitioner at the relevant time was
working as Assistant Registrar (Admin
Section) of the Institute.

2. Statue 13(2) of the Indian Institute
of Technology Statute framed under the
Institute
of
Technology
Act,
1961
prescribes the age of superannuation of a
confirmed appointee. It reads as under:

"13 (2) Subject to the provisions of
the Act and the Statutes, all appointments
to posts under the Institute shall ordinarily
be made on probation for a period of one
year after which period the appointee, if
confirmed shall continue to hold his office
subject to the provisions of the Act and
the Statutes, till the end of the month in
which he attains the age of 60 years.

Provided that where the Board
considers that in the interests of students
and for the purposes of teaching and
guiding the research scholars any member
of the academic staff should be reemployed, it may re-employ such a
member till the end of the semester or the
academic session as may be considered
appropriate in the circumstances of each
case.

Provided
further
that
where
it
becomes necessary to re-employ any such
member beyond the end of the semester
or academic session as the case may be,
the Board may with the previous approval
of the Visitor, re-employ any such
member for a period upto three years in
the first instance and upto two years
thereafter and in no case exceeding the
end of the academic session in which he
attains the age of 65 years.

Provided
also
that
in
no
circumstances such member shall be reemployed for any purposes other than
those of teaching and guiding the research
scholars."

3. It would be evident from the
provision aforestated that the right of a
confirmed employee of the Institute to
continue in service 'till the end of the
month in which he attains the age of 60
years', is 'subject to the provisions of the
Act and the Statutes'. Petitioner claims
entitlement to continue in service till he
attains the age of 62 years on the basis of
the decision contained in letter dated
27.7.1998 issued by the Ministry of
Human Resource Development addressed
to the Secretary, University Grants
Commission with copies forwarded to the
Vice
Chancellors
of
all
Central
Universities;
Member
Secretary,
A.I.C.T.E. and Secretary, Indian Council
for Agricultural Research, New Delhi
providing
therein
that
the
age
of
superannuation of University and College
teachers would be 62 years with liberty
reserved to the Universities or Colleges to
re-employ superannuated teachers upto 65
years within the existing guidelines
framed by the U.G.C. and subsequent
letter dated 31.8.1998 of the Department
of
Education,
Ministry
of
Human
Resource Development addressed to the
Director, Indian Institute of Technology
with regard to increase in age of
superannuation
of
academic
stock
including personnel of Registry, Library
and Physical Education. A copy of the
letter dated 31.8.1998 has been annexed
as annexure no.2 to the writ petition. The
petitioner has placed reliance also on
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
392
clarificatory letter dated November 6,
1998 issued by the Department of
Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India in
continuation of earlier letter dated 27.7.
1998 providing therein that the provisions
indicated in para 1 (vi) of the letter dated
27.7.1998 shall also be applicable to
Registrar, Librarian, Physical Education
personnel, Controllers of Examination,
Finance Officers etc. Another letter dated
24.3.1999 was issued by the Department
of
Education,
Ministry
of
Human
Resource Development, Government of
India
addressed
to
the
Secretary,
University Grants Commission removing
doubts raised from certain quarters as to
whether benefit of enhancement in the age
of superannuation be allowed in the case
of Readers, Professors is available to nonteaching employees with comparable
designation such as System Analyst,
Scientific Officer, Engineering etc. The
answer as per letter is as under:

"The benefit of enhancement in the
age of retirement is available only to
Teachers
and
Registrars/Librarians
Physical Education, Personnel/Controllers
of Examinations/Finance Officers only. In
the case of other non-teaching employees
the age of retirement will be 60"

4. Yet another letter dated 30.3.1999
issued by the Department of Education,
Ministry
of
Human
Resource
Development,
Government
of
India
specifically in relation to I.I.Ts., I.I.Ms.
and I.I.Sc. pursuant to its earlier decision
contained in the Ministry's letter dated
27.7.1998 visualizing that the age of
superannuation of 62 years indicated in
para 1(vi) of the Ministry's letter dated
27.7.1998 would also be applicable to
Registrars,
Librarians,
Physical
Education,
Personnel
Controllers
of
Examination, Finance Officers and such
other University employees who are being
treated at par with the teachers and whose
age of superannuation was 60 years. It
would appear that pursuant to the
aforesaid
directions
issued
by
the
Department of Education, Ministry of
Human Resource Development, the I.I.T.,
Kanpur took a policy decision that
retirement of the incumbents will be 60
years or 62 years depending on whether
the date of superannuation under the
service rules at the time of appointment
was 58 years or it was 60 years. A letter
dated 24.6.1999 containing the said policy
decision has been annexed as annexure
no. 5 to the writ petition. By means of the
said letter the Chairman, Board of
Governors was requested to approve the
proposal contained in the letter. The said
proposal, it is stated in the writ petition,
was duly approved by the Chairman,
Board of Governors, I.I.T., Kanpur.

5. Sri R.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate
appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner, a personnel of Registry,
was entitled to continue up to the age of
62 years in view of the above policy
decisions
taken
by
the
Board
of
Governors
pursuant
to
the
various
decisions of the Department of Education,
Ministry
of
Human
Resource
Development, Government of India. It has
also been submitted by the learned
counsel that the Directors of the Indian
Institutes of the country in their meeting
held on 3.5.1999 took a policy decision
that the age of superannuation of those
officers who were to be superannuated on
attaining the age of 58 years would be 60
years and that of the officers whose age of
retirement was initially 60 years under the
service rules would now be 62 years. Sri
2 All] Raja Ram Verma Vs. Union of India through Secretary and others
393
R.N. Singh has also submitted that Sri
S.H. Bakre and Sri S.K. Gupta have been
extended the benefit of the above
decisions in relation to the age of
superannuation while the petitioner, a
similarly circumstanced personnel of the
registry, has been denied the benefit of
enhancement of age of superannuation.
Sri S.N. Verma, Senior Advocate
appearing for the Institute contended that
the Statute 13.2 prescribing the age of
superannuation having not been amended,
the petitioner cannot claim entitlement to
continue in service upto the age of 62
years merely on the strength of the
Government Orders or the policy decision
taken by the Board of Governors. The
first Statutes, submitted Sri Verma, have
been framed by the Council with the
previous approval of the Visitor and any
addition to the Statute or any amendment
or repeal of the Statute by the Board
requires 'previous approval of the Visitor'
as provided in Section 27 (3) of the
Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 and as
provided by Section 27 (4) of the Act, a
new
Statute
amending
the
existing
Statutes has no validity unless it has been
accented to by the Visitor. Sri Verma
placed reliance on clarificatory letter F.
No.
23-8/98-TS-I
(Govt.
of
India)
Ministry
of
Human
Resource
Development, Department of Secondary
and Higher Education, Technical Science1, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi Dated
February 16, 2000.

6. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions made
across the Bar. The terms and conditions
of service of permanent employees are
laid down in Statute 13 extracted herein
before. Clause (2) of Statute 13 provides
that an appointee to a post under the
Statute if confirmed, "shall continue to
hold his office subject to the provisions
of the Act and Statutes, till the end of
the month in which he attains the age of
60 years". This is applicable to both
teaching and non-teaching employees of
the Institute. Right of a confirmed
employee of the Institute to continue in
office 'till the end of the month in which
he attains the age of 60 years is subject to
the provisions of the Act and the Statute'.
Attention of the Court was not invited to
any provision in the Act or the Statute
forbidding the Board of Governors from
taking a policy decision pursuant to any
direction given by the Ministry of Human
Resource, Government of India to allow
the employees of the Institute to continue
till the age of 62 years. In other words
nothing in the Act or the Statute prohibits
enhancement of age of superannuation of
employees of the Institute pursuant to a
policy decision. Such policy decision, if
uniformly applied, would not be violative
of Statute 13 (2) of the Statutes. In fact
the Institute has done so in the case of the
teachers and certain members of the
Registry- for example Sri S.H. Bakre and
Sri S.K. Gupta. On the contrary, selective
implementation of a policy decision
would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It is true that the petitioner
cannot claim, as of right, any extension in
the prescribed age of superannuation but
the Institute having taken policy decision
keeping in view the directions issued by
the Ministry of Human Resource and
Development,
Government
of
India
cannot be permitted to apply the said
policy in a selective manner depending
upon the whims of those who matter.

7. The Government Orders referred
to herein above had the force of law by
virtue of Article 73 of the Constitution of
India. In para 4 of the counter affidavit
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
394
filed by Sri Sanjay Bhatnagar, Assistant
Registrar (Legal and Confidential) in the
Institute it has been clarified that the
I.I.T., Kanpur is a body corporate
established under the provisions of the
Act and "the decision of the Government
of India do not ipso facto apply to the
institute" unless and until they are adopted
by the Board of Governors of the Institute
in accordance with the provisions of the
Act in relation to the Institute. As stated
herein above the Government decisions
were
approved
by
the
Board
of
Governor's and, therefore, even according
to what is stated in para 4 of the counter
affidavit the Government decisions apply
to the Institute inasmuch as nothing in the
Act precludes the board of Governors to
take policy decision to enhance the age of
retirement of the employees of the
Institute. I.I.T., Kanpur though is an
autonomous
body
is
under
the
administrative control of the Ministry of
Human Resource Development as stated
in para no. 22 of the counter affidavit
filed by Sri Sanjay Bhatnagar on behalf of
the Institute. The policy decision taken by
the Board does not appear to have been
reversed in the light of clarificatory letter
dated
16.2.2000
issued
by
the
Government of India, reliance on which
was placed by Sri S.N. Verma during the
course of arguments. In the fact situation
of the case, therefore, the petitioner is
entitled to the reliefs claimed in the writ
petition.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order superannuating the petitioner w.e.f.
31.12.2000 is quashed. Respondents are
directed to allow the petitioner to continue
in service till he attains the age of 62
years and grant him all consequential
benefits. Parties are directed to bear their
own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.R. SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. DASH, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1754 of
1999

Siddhu and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.K. Jain
Sri Shree Prakash Singh
Sri V.N. Vishwakarma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Asthana
Sri A.K. Banerjee
A.G.A.

Constitution of India- Article 226- Death
in Police custody-if a persons while in
the police custody died an unnatural
death and there were anti mortem
injuries on his person, it is for the police
to explain how he received the injuries
which
resulted
in
his
deathcompensation
awarded
to
the
petitioners-The amount of compensation
would be recovered from the concerned
Police Officers.

So taking an overall view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, we direct the
State
respondent
no.1
to
pay
a
compensation
of
Rs.2,50,000/-
(Rs.1,50,000/- to petitioners no.1 and 2
and Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner no. 3)
within one month hence. The aforesaid
amount may be recovered by the State
from the concerned police officers for