reinstate teacher till 60 years as per cbse rule

Madras High Court P.K.Gomathi vs The Central Board Of Secondary ... on 4 September, 2019 W.P.No.5345 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04-09-2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD,J., W.P.No.5345 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

7 In fact, the issue involved in the writ petition is no longer res W.P.No.5345 of 2010 integra, since in similar writ petition in W.P.No.9165 of 2019 filed by one of the erstwhile teacher of the same school, this Court has granted the relief to the petitioner therein by directing the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner in service and continue her in service till she attains the age of 60 years. This Court also directed the respondents to pay her all benefits as admissible. It is worthwhile, to extract the relevant portion of the order as found in Paragraph Nos.13 to 15 as under: “13. It is a fact that the 4th respondent school is affiliated to the 1st respondent viz., CBSE and the Bye Laws of the CBSE are applicable to the 4th respondent school in which the petitioner was employed as a Teacher. In respect of the same school, two learned Judges of this Court have clearly held that the Teachers were entitled to serve the school till they attain the 60 years of age. Both the learned Judges have relied on Bye Laws 30 of the CBSE which governed the service conditions of the Teachers of the 4th respondent school. Moreover, in the absence of a clear Bye Laws in regard to retirement age of the petitioner, as far as the 4th respondent school is concerned, the Bye Laws of the CBSE is automatically made applicable with reference to the service conditions of the employees of the 4th respondent school. When similarly placed Teachers have obtained orders from this Court holding that their age of retirement is only 60 years and in fact, they continued till the age of 60 years, this Court does not think that the present petitioner can be treated differently in the matter of retirement age. If any such different treatment is to be meeted out that could be grossly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. “14. Even otherwise, if the amendment to the Bye Laws http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.5345 of 2010 which came into effect 19.10.2018 is to be considered, as rightly relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in a decision of this Court reported in 2012 (4) CTC 577 (cited supra), such amendment prescribing a different condition of service can be made applicable only prospectively and the petitioner, who joined much before the amendment was brought in, cannot be allowed to suffer a new condition of service to her detriment. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher in 1988, 20“13.It is a fact that the 4th respondent school is affiliated to the 1st respondent viz., CBSE and the Bye Laws of the CBSE are applicable to the 4th respondent school in which the petitioner was employed as a Teacher. In respect of the same school, two learned Judges of this Court have clearly held that the Teachers were entitled to serve the school till they attain the 60 years of age. Both the learned Judges have relied on Bye Laws 30 of the CBSE which governed the service conditions of the Teachers of the 4th respondent school. Moreover, in the absence of a clear Bye Laws in regard to retirement age of the petitioner, as far as the 4th respondent school is concerned, the Bye Laws of the CBSE is automatically made applicable with reference to the service conditions of the employees of the 4th respondent school. When similarly placed Teachers have obtained orders from this Court holding that their age of retirement is only 60 years and in fact, they P.K.Gomathi vs The Central Board Of Secondary ... on 4 September, 2019 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/7270447/ 3 continued till the age of 60 years, this Court does not think that the present petitioner can be treated differently in the matter of retirement age. If any such different treatment is to be meeted out that could be grossly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. “15.For the above said reason, this Court is of the http://www.judis.nic.in considered view that the petitioner has made out a clear case W.P.No.5345 of 2010 for grant of relief as the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also on the basis of the Bye Laws of the 1st respondent Board. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents 4 and 5 to reinstate the petitioner in service as Teacher and continue her in service till she attains the age of 60 years and pay her all benefits as admissible. The respondents 4 and 5 are directed to pass appropriate orders in complying with a direction within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” years before the amendment and therefore, such amendment can at best be applied prospectively, when staff are appointed after the said date of appointment. Further, the fact of the 4th respondent school affiliated with the 1st respondent Board would mean that the Bye Laws of the Board would automatically apply including the service conditions of the employees and the Bye Laws of the 1st respondent Board shall prevail over any local arrangement of the 4th respondent school with its staff. In any case, the absence of any particular service conditions regarding age of retirement formulated by the 4th respondent society has not been disputed except stating that the power is with the Managing Committee. Such general power vested with the Managing Committee does not empower the 4th respondent school to retire its staff contrary to the specific Bye Laws of the 1st respondent Board.” 8 Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the issue http://www.judis.nic.in involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the above said W.P.No.5345 of 2010 order. Accordingly, the petitioner is also entitled to the relief as sought for in the writ petition