of West Bengal & Ors Vs. Gopal Chandra Paul
& Ors  INSC 315 (14 July 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J) K. Ramaswamy.J.
1996 AIR 547 1995 SCC Supl. (3) 327 JT 1995 (5) 557 1995 SCALE (4)420
DAY OF JULY, 1995 Present:
Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.L .Hansaria Mr.V.R.Reddy,
Additional Solicitor General and Mr.Tapas Ray, Sr.Adv. and Mr.H.K.Puri, Adv,
with them for the appellants. Mr.A.K.Sen, Sr., Mr.V.B.Joshi and Mr.G.S.Chatterjee,
Advs. with him for the Respondents.
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 6191 OF 1995 [Arising out of SLP Nos.14662/95 (CC 851/95) STATE OF
WEST BENGAL & ORS. .......APPELLANTS VERSUS C.A.NOS.6192-6196 OF 1995
(Arising out of SLP Nos.14664-14668/95 (CC 1585, 1576, 1571, 1098, 1150)
off procedural wrangles, the core question in these appeals is whether the
superannuation at the age of 60 years available to the teaching staff of the
Government schools of the Education Department of West Bengal would stand
extended to the inspecting staff of the said Department. The learned single
Judge and Division Bench reached their decision on inter transferability, at
some stage of the teaching staff and the inspecting staff, which position was
not accepted by the State and held that the inspecting staff would stand on
parity with the teaching staff and thereby the benefit of superannuation of 60 years
would be applicable to the inspecting staff. Rule 75 of the West Bengal Service
Rules-Part I, (for short, the Rules') in Chapter x provides superannuation of
the government employees other than a member of the group `D' (Class-IV)
service who shall retire from service compulsorily with effect from the
afternoon of the last date of the month in which the employee attains the age
of 58 years. The second proviso thereto adumbrates an exception that
"provided further that the age for retirement as prescribed in this rule
shall not be applicable in cases where higher age-limit upto 60 years for
retirement has been fixed under any general or special orders of
Government." In the notification No.1995-Edu (A) 17A-1/81 dated October 1, 1981, it was stated that "notwithstanding
anything contained in the Rules, the date of compulsory retirement of a teacher
of a Government Education Institution shall be the date on which he attains the
age of 60 years which was superseded ultimately by notification No.0426-Education
dated May 29, 1990. Therein the Governor, while
extending the last date to file options by all categories of teaching staff of
Government schools and Government Madrashas up to June 4, 1990, stipulated thus:
The age of superannuation of teaching staff of Government Schools and Madrashas, appointed on or
after 1.1.86, is fixed at 60 years.
The age of superannuation of teaching staff of Government Schools and Government Madrashas, appointed
prior to 1.1.86, who elect to come over to the revised scale of pay shall be 60
may, however, retain their old scale of pay under ROPA Rules, 1981 to get the
benefit of extension of services, on year to year basis, upto 65 years subject
to the condition that they are physically fit and mentally alert.
extension of service should be sanctioned by the Competent Authorities and
would be subject to the result of the relevant cases now sub-judice.
The teaching staff of Government School and Government Madrashas, who had been
enjoying the extension of service on year to year basis on and from 1.1.86 to
the date of issue of this order may also come under the revised scale of pay
provided they have already retired on agree to retire on or before 4th June,
order modifies the earlier order No.81-Edn(B)/1M-3/82 dated 31.3.86."
Thus, it would be clear that the age of superannuation of teaching staff of Government Schools and Government Madarshas appointed prior to January 1, 1986, who elect to opt to the rules,
shall be 60 years. This would also be applicable to those teaching staff who
had been enjoying the extension of service of year to year basis on and from January 1, 1986 to the date of May 29, 1990 provided that they have already
retired on agreeing to retire on or before June 4, 1990. It is manifest that Rule 75 of the
Rules would be applicable to all Government staff except Group `D' and
employees covered by the notification issued under the 2nd proviso. The normal
Rule of superannuation of all Government servants except the excepted class of
employees is 58 years.
the teaching staff, the superannuation is 60 years.
question is whether the inspecting staff is entitled to retire on their
attaining superannuation upto 60 years. The contention of Shri V.R. Reddy,
learned Additional Solicitor General, is that the service conditions of the
teaching staff and the inspecting staff are regulated by statutory rules issued
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The teaching staff is neither
a feeder post, nor transfer of inspecting staff as a teacher is a mode of
recruitment. The recruitment to the respective cadres is either by direct
recruitment or promotion from the specified feeder posts. Since the inspecting
staff is neither a feeder post to the teaching staff nor the rules prescribe
for transfer of inspecting staff to become a member of the teaching staff, the
inspecting staff should be required to retire on their attaining the age of 58
years. Shri A.K.Sen, learned Senior counsel for respondents, repelled the
contention arguing that practice has grown that the teaching staff and
inspecting staff are interchangeable which position was not controverted by the
appellants either by filing an affidavit in opposition in the High Court nor
placed any contrary material in this Court. Thereby, it must be deemed to have
been admitted that the teaching staff and the inspecting staff are
interchangeable. On that premise, the inspecting staff stands on parity with
the teaching staff. Thereby the inspecting staff are entitled to retire on
attaining the age of 60 years. We find no force in the contention.
the Governor exercising the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution,
issued statutory rules (Annex B of paper book) prescribing rules for
recruitment to the posts of District Inspector of Schools and Additional
District Inspector of Schools in the West Bengal Educational Service. The
method of recruitment is (i) by selection (direct recruitment), departmental
candidates being eligible to apply, or (ii) by promotion from the confirmed
Assistant Inspectors of Schools. Explanation:
posts shall be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of
2:1. The Qualifications for direct recruitment are
second class Master's degree of a recognised University in India or an equivalent degree,
degree in teaching of an Indian University or equivalent degree.
three years' experience of Inspection work or in teaching in a school,
to undertakes touring.
with modern outlook and method of school inspection.
for planning and organisation.
power of expression in Bengali- spoken and written.
on December 19, 1975, the Governor issued statutory
rules regulating recruitment to the posts of Head Master of Government High
Schools in the West Bengal Senior Educational Service (Annex C of Paper Book).
The method of recruitment has been specified therein which is by direct
recruitment or by promotion from confirmed Headmasters in the West Bengal
Educational Service (Men's Branch) either by selection, departmental candidates
being eligible to apply.
the ratio of 2:1 has been prescribed in direct recruitment. The qualifications
for direct recruitment have been provided thus:
for direct recruitment Essential:
second class Master's degree of a recognised University or an equivalent
first class degree in Teaching and /or Education of a recognised University or
an equivalent degree,
ten years teaching experience in recognised second schools,
for developing corporate life and maintaining discipline in secondary schools,
with the latest development in secondary education, and
power of expression in Bengali-spoken and written.
post-graduate degree in Education or an equivalent degree, and
administrative experience." It would thus be clear that the statutory
rules do not prescribe transfer of the inspecting staff or the teaching staff
to the other service as a mode of recruitment nor is it a feeder post for the
other service. In other words, the teaching staff and inspecting staff are two
distinct and independent services and the two streams never mingled at any
stage. The qualifications, the mode of recruitment and service conditions are
separate. The cadres are distinct.
inspecting staff are entirely to look after the inspection of the schools while
the teaching staff are required to impart education to the students.
question is whether the pollutant source, obviously manoeuvred at some stage
without statutory amendments to the rules, can provide legitimacy and would
form foundation to claim the benefit of superannuation of 60 years? The answer
is obvious. When statutory rule 75 expressly prescribes the maximum
superannuation of 58 years to all Government employees excluding the excepted
class or classes and the teacher is one such class, an Inspector, a distinct
cadre, by no stretch of imagination can be taken as a teacher. The second
proviso is an exception to rule 75 which enables the State Government to grant
the benefit by a notification and pursuant thereto the statutory notification
and pursuant thereto the statutory notification was issued prescribing superannuation
of 60 years for a teacher. Rule 75 is unequivocal and clear. Stray incidents of
transfer by subordinate officers would not give legitimacy to claim parity at
the stage of superannuation. Giving countenance to such a contention breeds
corruption, nepotism and favoritism.
High Court relied upon a judgment of a single Judge in which the Government had
not filed counter and that judgment formed foundation as precedent for later
cases. The statutory rules were neither referred to nor construed.
judgment of the High Court of Delhi in which a teacher appears to have been
transferred to the inspecting staff, who, when sought to be superannuated on
attaining the age of 58 years, questioned the same. The High Court had given
him the benefit of 60 years since he was recruited as a teacher. Apart from the
correctness of the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to grant the relief to
a teacher government by the rules, the ratio therein has no application to the
facts and it cannot form the base to grant the relief of superannuation of 60
years to the members of inspecting staff.
therefore, hold that inspecting staff governed by the statutory rules are not
on par with the teaching staff.
they are required to retire compulsorily on attaining the age of superannuation
of 58 years and shall retire in the afternoon of the last day of the month in
which he/she attains the age of 58 years. The appeals are accordingly allowed
but in the circumstances without costs.