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

1997 Supreme(SC) 908

1997(6) Supreme 264
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. Ray and K.T. Thomas, JJ.
Osmania University -Appellant
versus
V.S. Muthurangam & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1107-08 of 1990
Decided on 8-7-1997

Headnote:Osmania University Act, 1959- Section 38(1) -Age of superannuation-No statutory compulsion to maintain age of superannuation of teaching staff at par with government employees-University increased age of superannuation of teaching staff to 60 years-Age of superannuation of non teaching staff should also be changed to bring parity in service conditions of salaried staff in obedience of mandate u/s 38(1) of the Act-No reason to interfere with judgment of High Court.

       Held that teaching and non teaching staff of the University are distinct and separate categories. The nature of duties to be performed by the teaching and non teaching staff of the University are also different. Therefore, apart from different scales of pay in the hierarchy of the service in both teaching and non teaching departments, it may be held that the nature of service of the two distinct and different departments namely the teaching and non teaching departments, is inherently different. Mr. Solicitor General is justified in his contention that Section 38(1) of the Act recognizes flexibility and the expression as far as possible inheres in it an inbuilt flexibility. There was impelling necessity for the University to change the age of superannuation of the teaching staff in order to give effect to the recommendations of the University Grants Commission. The University, in our view, will be justified within the ambit of Section 38(1) to introduce different conditions of service for different categories of employees if such different conditions become necessary for the exigency of the administration and if it is otherwise impracticable to bring uniformity in the conditions of service of different categories of the its employees. For the same reason, it is permissible for the University to introduce the age of superannuation differently for different categories of the employees, if introduction of such different age of superannuation can be justified on the anvil of felt need of the administration. But if uniform conditions of service for teaching and non teaching staff of the University is not otherwise impracticable, the University is under an obligation to maintain such uniformity because of the mandate of Section 38(1) of the Act. In the instant case, we do not find that it is not at all practicable for the University to maintain the parity in the age of superannuation of both teaching and non teaching staff. There is no compulsion under the law that University is bound to maintain the same age of superannuation of its teaching and non teaching staff as is available to the employees of the State Government. Because there is no such statutory compulsion to maintain the age of superannuation of the teaching staff at par with government employees, the University has increased the age of superannuation of its teaching staff. Hence, University can easily raise the age of superannuation of the non teaching staff for bringing a parity in the service conditions of the salaried staff of the University by fulfilling the mandate under Section 38(1) of the Act. Hence, the decision of the High Court that when the age of the teaching staff of the University has been increased to 60 years the age of superannuation of the non teaching staff should also be changed in the similar manner in order to bring parity in the service conditions of the salaried staff of the University in obedience of the mandate under Section 38(1) of the Act, is justified. (Para 8)

       

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 first part provides that unless otherwise provided, every salaried officer of the University shall be appointed under a written contract and the second part of sub-section (1) of Section 38 provides that conditions of service relating to such salaried officers of the University shall as far as possible, be uniform except in respect of salaries payable to them.

3 Mr. Solicitor General has contended that the University has a large number of employees both in the teaching and non teaching departments. In each of such departments, there are different cadres having different pay structure. Since the employees belong to different cadres discharging different types of duties and responsibilities, it is inherently not practicable to lay down absolutely uniform service conditions even other than pay structure for such diverse cadres of teaching and non teaching staff of the University. Keeping in view the felt need of some amount of flexibility in the service conditions of the various cadres in the teaching and non teaching establishment, in sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Act, it has been specifically indicated that the conditions of service of the employees of the University will be uniform as far as possible. Such expression clearly indicates that although by and large service conditions of the employees will be uniform, there may be occasions to have some difference in the conditions of service in order to meet different exigencies having bearing on the service conditions of the employees.

4 Mr. Solicitor General has also contended that age of superannuation is undoubtedly an important condition of service of an employee. Previously, both the teaching and non-teaching staff of the University had uniform age of retirement on attaining 55 years. Such age of superannuation was later on increased to 58 years when the State Government increased the age of superannuation of its employees because University, in principle, follows the conditions of service of the employees of the State Government. But in view of the recommendations of the University Grants Commission in respect of pay structure of various cadres of the teaching staff of the University e.g. Lecturers, Readers, Assistant Professor etc. and age of superannuation of such teaching staff of the University, the University had to implement such recommendations of the University Grants Commission in respect of its teaching staff. Mr. Solicitor General has submitted that the recommendations of an august body like University Grants Commission cannot be stifled and as a matter of fact all the universities having gracefully accepted such recommendations have implemented the same. It was recommended by the University Grants Commission that the normal age of superannuation of a teaching staff would be 60 y






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 Back to top