Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33910 of 2010 Petitioner :- Urmila Chaturvedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.P. Pandey,S.N. Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
The petitioner is a lecturer in an institution. The age of superannuation of a
lecturer under the Rules is 62 years. However she opted for retirement of the
age of 60 years. The option was forwarded and was accepted by the D.I.O.S.
on 10.6.2009. It was also counter signed by the Deputy Director of Education
on 13.10.2009. Thereafter petitioner applied for revocation of the above
option on 23rd March, 2010, the said application has not been accepted and it
has been stated that the option of the retirement at the age of 60 years having
been accepted it can not be permitted to be changed. This order of the District
Magistrate has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that D.I.O.S. is not
the competent authority to deal with the petitioner’s application for
withdrawal of the option.
It is further contended that as under the Rule, the age of the superannuation is
62 years, and the petitioner before actual retirement has withdrawn the option,
she can not be forced to retire at the age of 60 years.
The matter requires consideration.
Learned standing counsel prays for and is allowed one month’s time to file
counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit within a week thereafter.
List on 9th, August, 2010.
It is however provided that in the event the petition succeeds, the petitioner
shall be entitled to salary emoluments till the age of 62 years, irrespective of
the fact she as to whether has worked or not.
Order Date :- 24.6.2010
R.C.