MISS RAJ SONI versus AIR OFFICER INCHARGE ADMINISTRATION & ANR.

MISS RAJ SONI versus AIR OFFICER INCHARGE ADMINISTRATION & ANR.

The petitioner, being an existing employee on the date of commencement of the Act, was entitled to retire at age 60 under Rule 110 of the Delhi Education Rules, 1973, and Section 208 of the Delhi Education Code; the management's order retiring her at 58 years was arbitrary and unlawful.

Parties
Petitioner: Miss Raj Soni; Petitioner Advocate: M.K.D. Namboodary; Respondent: Air Officer Incharge Administration; Respondent Advocate: Mrs. Madhu Sikri
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 April 1990
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed
Legal Topics
Retirement Age, Statutory Rights, Private School Employment, Article 12 of the Constitution, Service Conditions
Education Law Constitutional Law Employment Law Retirement Age Statutory Rights Private School Employment Article 12 of the Constitution Service Conditions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Raj Soni

Petitioner

M.K.D. Namboodary

Petitioner Advocate

Air Officer Incharge Administration

Respondent

Mrs. Madhu Sikri

Respondent Advocate

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employee of a pre-existing recognised school is entitled to superannuate at 60 years under the Delhi Education Code, 1965
  2. 2 Whether the management is under a statutory obligation and can defy statute on the ground that it is not covered by Article 12 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner, being an existing employee on the date of commencement of the Act, was entitled to retire at age 60 under Rule 110 of the Delhi Education Rules, 1973, and Section 208 of the Delhi Education Code; the management's order retiring her at 58 years was arbitrary and unlawful.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed

Orders

  • Order retiring petitioner at age 58 quashed
  • Respondents to pay salary and allowances for period of two years