TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Post-superannuation service extension request u/r 143 denied for lack of exceptional public-interest grounds; refusal upheld, petition dismissed.</h1> Challenge to refusal of post-superannuation extension was decided by applying Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016, which permits ... Rejection of petitioner's request for extension in service after superannuation - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner's case was correctly considered by the second respondent in the light of Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016, wherein it has been provided that extension in service can be granted in exceptional circumstances in public interest only, and it should not be as a matter of routine. No exceptional circumstance was found to be existing in the petitioner's case, nor the administrative requirements justified extension of service to her. There are employees waiting for promotions, and the Department thought it appropriate to consider their cases instead of granting extension in service to the petitioner, who has superannuated after a long tenure. Submission of representations by residents of the area where the petitioner was teaching, seeking extension in service for her, does not show existence of any public interest or exceptional circumstance for extending the service. Besides, the names of other persons mentioned in the petition, who statedly have been given extension in service, are sans any particular. Nor is there any document on record, to even prima facie indicate similarity in theirs and the petitioner's case. Further, in case any such extension has been given in violation of Rules, the same will not give any right to the petitioner to claim retention in service. There is no ground to entertain the petition, and it stands dismissed. The petition sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order rejecting the petitioner's request for 'extension in service after superannuation.' The petitioner, a Principal who retired on 30.11.2023, relied on good work and conduct, local residents' representations requesting her continuance, and an assertion that similarly placed departmental employees had been granted extension. The Court upheld the rejection, finding the competent authority 'correctly considered' the case under Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016, which permits extension only 'in exceptional circumstances in public interest' and 'should not be as a matter of routine.' The order recorded that 'No exceptional circumstance was found,' and 'nor the administrative requirements justified extension,' particularly because employees were awaiting promotions and the Department chose to consider their cases instead of extending a superannuated employee's tenure. Representations by residents were held insufficient to establish 'public interest or exceptional circumstance.' The alleged comparators were unsupported by particulars or documents showing similarity. Even if others received extensions 'in violation of Rules,' that would not confer any right to claim retention. The petition was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
