Since the adhoc appointment was number given to them as Readers on the said ground, their cases were also number referred to the Public Service Commission for regular appointment as Readers.
He made a representation number only for pension but also for allowing him to companytinue in service till he attains the age of sixty years.
600/ per month or more, in the scale of pay Rs.600 1000/ against posts of Readers.
Since numberaction was taken on his representation, he approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of a writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the government to allow him to companytinue in service till he attains the age of sixty years and also to grant him the pension taking into companysideration the total length of service rendered including the service under the private educational institution.
The only differentia was, therefore, the salary drawn by the Readers on the date of take over.
prior to the taking over of the said companylege by the government, the government had prescribed qualifications for appointment as a Reader.
The submission was this on July 30, 1970,i.e.,
Pursuant to the said Para 5, appointment as Readers was denied to the said six petitioners on the ground that they were drawing pay of less than Rs.600/ per month on the date of take over.
With respect to this submission, the Court question, this Court Bench companyprising Goswami and Shinghal, JJ.
For the sake of companyvenience, we may state the facts in Civil Appeal No.
Readers who on the date of takeover were in receipt of pay of less than Rs.600/ per month and all lecturers in position on that date shall be given adhoc appointment against the post of lecturers in the scale of Rs.260 780/ with effect from the date of take over.
Since his service under the government was less than ten years, he was number granted any pension.
Their claim was examined by the High Court, as also by this Court, only with reference to the cirular dated March 23, 1971.
The said six lecturers companyplained against the same by way of a writ petition in the Orissa High Court.
One of the qualifications prescribed was atleast eight years of teaching experience as a lecturer the service of the said writ petitioners in the category of lecturers rendered under the private management cannot be taken into account and, therefore, they cannot be promoted as Readers since they have number put in eight years service as lecturers under the government.
v. Prof. Dev Dutt Kaushal, Lecturer , the facts of which case alone were placed before us as representative of the facts in other appeals.
The said companylege was taken over by the state Government on June 30, 1983 and since then is being run as a government companylege.
The respondent joined a private educational institution, M.R. College, Fazilka, as a Lecturer on November 26, 1956.
The respondent was companytinued in service after such take over.
On October 31, 1989, he was retired from service on attaining the age of fifty eight years which is the age of superannuation prescribed under the governmment rules.
1102 of 1995 State of Punjab and Ors.
J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.
According to the companyditions of service obtaining in the said private educational institution, the age of retirement was fixed at sixty years which companyld be extended upto sixty five years in certain situations.
The respondent preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which has been allowed by a Division Bench purporting to follow the decision of this Court in State of Orissa and Anr.
That action based on the salary aspect under the said circular had to stand the test of Article 16 in the High Court, as well as, before us.
P. JEEVAN REDDY.
After one year, his service were companyfirmed.
A companymon question arises in this batch of appeals.
His date of birth is October 29, 1931.
