SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 908

G.N.RAY, K.T.THOMAS
Osmania University – Appellant
Versus
V. S. Muthurangam – Respondent


JUDGMENT

G.N. RAY, J.-The short question involved in these appeals is whether the age of superannuation of the non-teaching staff of the Osmania University should be raised to 60 years when the University has fixed the age of superannuation of the teaching staff of the University at 60 years. As the Osmania University authorities refused to raise the age of superannuation of the non-teaching staff to 60 years by implementing the mandate of maintaining uniformity in the conditions of service of all the salaried staff of the University under Section 38(1) of the Osmania University Act, 1959 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act), a number of non-teaching staff of the University moved Andhra Pradesh High Court by filing writ petitions claiming the age of superannuation at 60 years. Such claim was allowed by learned Single Judge and by the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court has also upheld the claim of the writ petitioners that the age of superannuation of the non teaching staff of the University will also be 60 years.

2. The learned Solicitor General, appearing for the Osmania University, has submitted that sub-section (1) of the Act has two distinct parts. The fi








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top