T.P.
George & Ors Vs. State of Kerala & Ors [1992] INSC 92 (24 March 1992)
Kania,
M.H. (Cj) Kania, M.H. (Cj) Mohan, S. (J)
CITATION:
1992 SCR (2) 311 1992 SCC Supl. (3) 191 JT 1992 (3) 88 1992 SCALE (1)889
ACT:
Civil
Services University Grants Commission Scheme, 1986-Clause 26-Age of
superannuation of teachers-Implementation of-State Government deciding to
implement the Scheme, but not accepting higher superannuation age of 60
years-Whether teachers entitled to superannuate on attaining 60 years- Different
conditions of service and superannuation age for teachers of universities and
private affiliated colleges- Whether discriminatory-Retirement age of 55 years
for affiliated college teachers too low-Experience gained by teachers after
several years of teaching-Not to be lost by early retirement age-Consideration
and determination of correct age by State Government-Need for.
HEAD NOTE:
Clause
26 of the University Grants Commission Scheme of 1986 framed by the Government,
pursuant to the recommendations of the Malhotra Committee, provided that the
age of superannuation for teachers should be 60 years. The Scheme also
contemplated certain improvement in the revision of pay scales and provision of
assistance in that behalf.
While
the Government of Kerala decided to adopt a major part of the Scheme, including
the revision of scales of pay it did not accept the recommendation as to the
age of superannuation. This was challenged by the affected teachers before the
High Court, contending that once the State Government had accepted the Scheme,
which also provided for higher age of 60 years for superannuation, all the
clauses of the Scheme became applicable and they were entitled to superannuate
at the age of 60 years. However, this plea was rejected by the High Court.
Hence, the appeal, by special leave, before this Court. Some Writ Petitions
were also filed before this Court, by the affected teachers.
Disposing
of the cases this Court,
HELD :
1.1
The High Court was right in holding that the UGC Scheme did not become
applicable because of any statutory mandate 312 making it obligatory for the
Government and the Universities to follow the same, and, therefore, the State
Government had the discretion either to accept or not accept the Scheme, And in
its discretion, it had decided to accept the Scheme, subject to the one
condition, that, in so far as the age of superannuation was concerned, they
would not accept the fixation of higher age provided in the Scheme; and that as
long as the age of superannuation remained fixed at 55 years, and as long as
the State Government had not accepted the UGC's recommendation to fix at 60
years, teachers could not claim as a matter of right that they were entitled to
retire on attaining the age of 60 years. [313B, F-G, 314D]
1.2. It
is clear from paragraph 4 of the circular dated 17th June, 1987 of the
Government of India addressed to all States/UTs (Union Territories) that the
adoption of the Scheme was voluntary, and the only result which might follow
from the State Government not adopting the scheme might be that it may not get
the benefit of the offer of reimbursement from the Government to the extent of
80 per cent of the additional expenditure involved in giving effect to the
revision of pay scales as recommended by the Scheme. [314 E-G]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1680- 87 and 1672-78 of 1992.
From
the Judgments and Orders dated 22.3.91, 13.3.91, 11.3.91, 12.3.91, 27.3.91,
14.3.91, 13.3.91, 18.3.91, 3.4.91, 19.6.91, 26.3.91, 25.3.91, 12.4.91 and
23.7.91 of the Kerala High Court in Original Petition No. 3291/1991-P, Writ
Appeal Nos. 236/91, 223/91, 230/91, 306/91, 239/91, 234/91, O.P.NO. 2939/91,
W.A.No.319/91 O.A.Nos. 6027/91-P, 3141/90-Y, 3335/91-V, W.A.Nos. 415, 420 and
639 of 1991. AND Writ Petition (C) Nos. 38/92, 1098/91 & 215/92.
(Under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
K.K. Venugopal,
G.Viswanatha Iyer, V.Jayaprasad, T.G.Narayanan Nair, R.F.Nariman and E.M.S. Anam
for the Appellants/Petitioners. P.S. Poti, T.T. Kunhi Kannan, Govind K. Bharathan,
Sudhir Gopi, A.G. Prasad and M.M. Kashyap for the Respondents.
313
The following order of the Court was delivered :
Special
leave granted.
Heard
learned counsel for the parties.
We are
in agreement with the observations of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court
in Writ Appeal No. 223 of 1991 quoted in the impugned judgment which run as
follow:
"Though
clause 26 of the Scheme provides that the age of superannuation for teachers
should be 60 years, and the scheme contemplates certain improvement in the
revision of pay-scales and providing for assistance in that behalf, it is not a
scheme which is statutorily binding either on the State Government or the
different Universities functioning under the relevant statues in the State of Kerala.
What the State Government has done by its order date 13-3-1990 is to implement
the UGC Scheme including revision of scales of pay in relation to teachers in
universities including Kerala Agricultural University, affiliated colleges, Law
Colleges, Engineering Colleges and Qualified Librarians and qualified physical
Education Teachers with effect from 1.1.1986, subject however to the express
condition that in so far as the age of retirement is concerned, the present
fixation of 55 years shall continue. The contention of the appellant is that
the State Government having accepted the UGC Scheme, and as the scheme provides
for a higher age of 60 years, once the State Government accepted the Scheme,
all the clauses of the Scheme became applicable. It is not possible to accede
to this contention. Firstly, as already stated the UGC Scheme does not become
applicable because of any statutory mandate making it obligatory for the
Government and the Universities to follow the same. Therefore the State
Government had the discretion either to accept or not to accept the scheme. In
its discretion it has decided to accept the Scheme, subject to the one
condition, namely in so far as the age of superannuation is concerned, they
will not accept the fixation of higher age provided in the Scheme. The State
Government having thus accepted the Scheme in the modified form, the teachers
can only get the benefit which flows from the Scheme 314 to the extent to which
it has been accepted by the State Government and the concerned Universities.
The
appellant cannot claim that major portion of the Scheme having been accepted by
the government, they have no right not to accept the clause relating to
fixation of higher age of superannuation. That is a matter between the State
Government on the one hand and the University Grants Commission on the other,
which was provided certain benefits by the Scheme. It is for the University
Grants Commission to extend the benefit of the Scheme or not to extend the
benefit of the Scheme, depending upon its satisfaction about the attitude taken
by the State Government in the matter of implementing the same. That is a
matter entirely between the State Government on the one hand and the University
Grants Commission on the other. Teachers of the private institution concerned
are governed by the Statutes framed under the relevant statutory enactment. As
long as the superannuation remains fixed at 55 years and as long as the State
Government has not accepted the UGC's recommendation to fix the age of
superannuation at 60 years, teachers cannot claim as a matter of right that
they are entitled to retire on attaining the age of 60 years." We may
clarify the scheme referred to UGC (University Grants commission) Scheme of
1986 framed by the Government pursuant to the Malhotra committee's Report. We
may further point out that it is clear from paragraph 4 of the circular dated
17th June, 1987, addressed by the Ministry of Human Resources Development,
department of Education, to the Education Secretary of all States/UTs (Union
territories) that the adoption of the scheme was voluntary, and the only result
which might follow from the State Government not adopting the scheme might be
that it may not get the benefit of the offer of reimbursement from the
Government to the extent of 80 per cent of the additional expenditure involved
in giving effect to the revision of pay scales as recommended by the Scheme.
We may
further point out that the teachers in Universities are governed in respect of
their condition of service and the age of retirement by the separate statues
made by the Universities concerned. On the other hand the teachers in private
colleges or affiliated colleges are governed in respect of their conditions of
service by regulations or rules framed by the 315 Government (separate set of
statutes). In these circumstances, the two classes of Universities teachers and
teachers in private colleges cannot be regarded as similar for purposes of
conditions of service as to bring the case under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
Although
the appeals and the writ petitions, in our view, cannot succeed, we do feel
that age of retirement fixed at 55 years in the case of teachers of affiliated
colleges is too low. It is only after a teacher acquires several years of
teaching experience that he really becomes adept at his job and it is
unfortunate if the students have to lose the benefit of his experience by
reason of an unduly early age of retirement. However, it is not for the court
to prescribe the correct age of retirement but that is a policy function
requiring considerable expertise which can properly be done by the State
Government or the State Legislature or the Universities concerned. We hope that
some time in near future, the State Government will be able to consider the
question and determine the age of retirement as it best thinks fit.
N.P.V.
Appeals and petitions disposed of.
Back