High Court Patna High Court - Orders

The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Dr.Lalta Pd.Srivastava & Ors on 9 August, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Dr.Lalta Pd.Srivastava & Ors on 9 August, 2011
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                           Letters Patent Appeal No.359 of 2005
                                            In
                     (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 10294/1999)

               01. The State Of Bihar
               02. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Higher Education,
                   Government of Bihar, Patna
               03. The Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, Government of
                   Bihar, Patna
                                  ..... Appellants/Respondents
                                        Versus
               01. Dr.Lalta Prasad Srivastava, son of Late Thakur Mangal
                   Prasad, resident of Parwati Niwas, Bakarganj Bajaja,
                   Bankipore, P.S.-Pirbahore, District- Patna
                                  ..... Respondent/Petitioner (Ist Set)
               02. The Patna University through its Registrar, Patna
               03. The Vice-Chancellor, Patna University, Patna
               04. The Registrar, Patna University, Patna
                                  ..... Respondents/Respondents (2nd Set)


               For the Appellants:-      Mr. Rakesh Kr. Samrendra, SC-21
                               ----------------------------------

07. 09.08.2011 The present L.P.A. is filed by the State

against the order dated 04.11.2004 passed in

C.W.J.C. No. 10294 of 1999.

The main contention urged before us is

that the post of Assistant Director in the University

of Patna is a teaching post, hence the individual

holding such post has to retire at the age of 60

years. It is also contended that in the case of one

I.H. Khan (Annexure-7), he was allowed to retire at

the age of 62 years and similarly the respondent was

also continued in service when he was asked to

retire at the age of 60 years. Aggrieved by same he
2

filed writ petition and the learned Single Judge has

allowed the writ petition treating similar case as that

of Mr. I.H. Khan.

Contention is sought to be raised by the

learned Government Advocate before us that as the

Assistant Director post is not a teaching post, hence

the individual holding such post has to retire at the

age of 60 years. To support his contention, the

appellant State has not placed any material before

us. In absence of such material, we are of the

opinion that as the learned Single Judge has

observed that the respondent petitioner is similarly

situated person to that of I.H. Khan, hence he is

entitled to retire at the age of 62 years, hence order

of the learned Single Judge needs no interference.

Accordingly, the L.P.A. stands disposed of.

(T. Meena Kumari, J.)

(Vikash Jain, J.)
P.K.