1. Teachers of state-owned engineering colleges sought parity in retirement age and pay scales with university college teachers. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 875
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : Sujata V.Manohar
State Of Bihar
Versus
Teachers Association Of Govt.Engineering College
Case No. : 2546 , 2550 of 1993
Date of Decision : 8/27/98
Important Points
Parity in service conditions, such as retirement age, cannot be claimed under Article 14 if employees are governed by different recruitment processes, authorities, and statutory rules, as such differences constitute a valid basis for differentiation.
Subject
Service Law - Superannuation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Service Law - Retirement Age - Parity in service conditions - Teachers in state-owned colleges governed by a state service code sought parity in retirement age with teachers in a university college governed by a university act - It was held that where the authority responsible for recruitment, the method of recruitment, and the rules and regulations governing service conditions are different, the service conditions of government servants cannot be equated with those of university teachers - Application of Article 14 is misconceived when there are valid criteria for differentiating between the service conditions of two different sets of employees. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
Teachers of three state-owned engineering colleges filed writ petitions seeking that their age of retirement be the same as that of teachers in a university college, along with parity in pay scales and arrears. The High Court granted these prayers. The State appealed, specifically challenging the decision regarding the age of retirement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the teachers in the state-owned colleges are government servants recruited through a state public service commission and governed by a state service code, whereas the teachers in the university college are recruited through a university service commission and governed by a university act.
Issues: Whether the age of superannuation for government teachers governed by a state service code should be equated with the age of superannuation for university teachers governed by a separate university act under Article 14.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that parity cannot be claimed under Article 14 when there are distinct differences in the recruitment authority, the method of recruitment, and the governing rules and regulations. Valid criteria for differentiation exist between government servants and university teachers.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Facts of the case:
Teachers of three state-owned engineering colleges filed writ petitions seeking that their age of retirement be the same as that of teachers in a university college, along with parity in pay scales and arrears. The High Court granted these prayers. The State appealed, specifically challenging the decision regarding the age of retirement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the teachers in the state-owned colleges are government servants recruited through a state public service commission and governed by a state service code, whereas the teachers in the university college are recruited through a university service commission and governed by a university act.
Issues: Whether the age of superannuation for government teachers governed by a state service code should be equated with the age of superannuation for university teachers governed by a separate university act under Article 14.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that parity cannot be claimed under Article 14 when there are distinct differences in the recruitment authority, the method of recruitment, and the governing rules and regulations. Valid criteria for differentiation exist between government servants and university teachers.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether teachers governed by state service codes are entitled to the same retirement age as university teachers governed by a separate university act. (Para 5 )
3. Service conditions, recruitment authorities, and governing rules differ between state government servants and university teachers, justifying different retirement ages. (Para 5 )
4. Article 14 does not mandate parity in service conditions between two distinct classes of employees governed by different recruitment rules and statutes. (Para 5 )
5. High Court order directing parity in retirement age and related benefits set aside; appeals allowed. (Para 5 )
6. Can employees governed by different service rules and recruitment authorities claim parity in retirement age under Article 14?
No. Parity cannot be claimed when there are valid criteria for differentiation, such as different recruitment authorities, different methods of recruitment, and different governing rules or acts. (Para 5 )
7. Does the application of Article 14 require equal retirement ages for all teachers regardless of their employment status as government servants or university employees?
No. The court held that the application of Article 14 is misconceived when employees are governed by different service codes or acts, as valid distinctions can exist between these classes. (Para 5 )
(1) WRIT petitions were filed before the High Court by the teachers of Bhagalpur Engineering College, Bhagalpur, Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur and Bihar Institute of Technology, Sindri, praying, inter alia, that their age of retirement should be the same as the age of retirement of teachers in Bihar College of Engineering, Patna. They had also prayed for the same pay scales and had claimed arrears in the UGC scale from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1975. Their prayers have been granted by the High Court. Hence, the present appeals have been preferred by the State of Bihar.
(2) IN the appeals the State of Bihar has not raised any dispute with relation to the pay scales and granting of arrears in the UGC scale from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1975. The only question at issue is regarding the age of retirement.
(3) THE three engineering colleges in question are owned by the State. The teachers of these three engineering colleges are recruited through the Bihar Public Service Commission. Their service conditions are governed by the Bihar Service Code. Under the relevant provisions of the Bihar Service Code the age of superannuation up to 1989, was 58 years. However, with effect from 1-10-1989 the age of superannuation has been raised to 60 years.
(4) BIHAR Engineering College, Patna is a college of University of Patna. The teachers in Bihar Engineering College being university teachers are recruited through the University Service Commission. Their service conditions are governed under the Patna University Act. At the relevant time the age of retirement for university teachers was 62 years. However, with effect from 15-8-1992 the age of retirement has been reduced to 60 years.
(5) THE respondents contend that their age of retirement should be the same as the age of retirement of university teachers employed in Bihar Engineering College, Patna. But the terms and conditions of service of teachers in the three engineering colleges of the State are different from the terms and conditions of service of the university teachers employed in Bihar Engineering College at Patna. The authority responsible for recruitment is also different. The method of recruitment is different and service conditions are prescribed under different rules and regulations and/or under a separate Act. We fail to see how in respect of the teachers who are government servants, governed by the Bihar Service Code, the age of superannuation should be different from the age of superannuation for all other government servants governed by the Bihar Service Code. The High Court ought not to have equated the service conditions in the three State colleges with the service conditions in a University college. Application of Article 14, in these circumstances, is misconceived, when there are valid criteria for differentiating between the service conditions in the two sets of colleges. In the premises the impugned judgment of the High Court insofar as it directs that the age of superannuation of teachers working in the three engineering colleges other than Bihar College of Engineering, Patna should be brought on par with the age of superannuation of those working in Bihar College of Engineering at Patna, is set aside. The further direction to pay arrears or give benefits flowing from the extended age of superannuation is also set aside. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
