S.R Singh, J.:— The petitioner a permanent Principal in an Intermediate College owned and controlled by the U.P State Cement Corporation Ltd., Sonbhadra was informed by office order dated 29.3.1994 that he would be attaining the age of superannuation (58 years) in the afternoon of 10.5.1994 but having regard to the interest of the students his services were extended upto 30th June, 1994. It is the validity of this order which is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the College is an ‘institution’, recognised under the provisions of the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and as such the petitioner is entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years which is the prescribed age of superannuation under regulation 21 of chapter-III of the Regulations made under the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The only question, therefore, that requires consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations made under the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
2. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the college in which the petitioner has been working as Principal is no doubt owned and controlled by the U.P State Cement Corporation Ltd. but it is a recognised institution within the meaning of Section 16-G of the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
3. Sri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents refuted the submission made by Sri Ashok Khare and urged that regulations made under the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 were not attracted.
4. Having given my anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar, I am of the view that the submission made by Sri Ashok Khare carries force. Section 16-H of the U.P Intermediate Education Act excludes applicability of Section 16-G among certain other sections mentioned therein, in respect of recognised institutions maintained by the State Government or the Central Government. In an identical matter, a Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Dayal Mehta v. Senior Personnel Executive, Indian Drugs and Pharamaceuticals Ltd., . 1990 16 ALR 1028. has clearly ruled that for the purposes of Section 16-H a distinction has been drawn between the State Government and its instrumentalities as well as between the Central Government and its instrumentalities and further that in its wisdom the legislature did not exempt recognised institutions maintained either by the instrumentalities of the State Government or Central Government from the operation of Section 16-G and other provisions referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 16-H. sub-section (2) of Section 16-H no doubt empowers the State Government to declare that all or any of the provisions referred to in sub-section (1) would not apply or would apply subject to such alteration, modification or addition as it may make in respect of institutions maintained by Local Body. The U.P State Cement Corporation being not equivalent to the State Government for the purposes of Section 16-H the institution can claim exemption from the operation of Section 16-H only if there is a declaration to this effect by the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 16-H provided, of course, the U.P State Cement Corporation is held to be a local body within the meaning of sub-section (2). No such declaration was brought to the notice of the court by the learned counsel for the respondents. In this view of the matter I have no hesitation in holding that the provisions of Section 16-G of the U.P Intermediate Education Act are fully attracted.
5. A perusal of Section 16-G(1) of the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 clearly indicates that every person employed in a recognised institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by regulations and any agreement between the management and such employee in so far as it is inconsistant with the provisions of this Act or with the regulations shall be void. Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations made under the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 prescribes, in no uncertain terms, 60 years as the age of superannuation of teachers in recognised institutions. The petitioner is therefore, entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years which is the prescribed age of superannuation.
6. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned office order dated 25.3.1994 is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to get all consequential benefits.
7. Petition Allowed.