1. Medical professor — superannuation at 60 — session benefit extension — subsequent government notification increasing retirement age to 65 — claim for continuance in service. (Para 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Chandra Mohan Varma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 350-351 of 2020 (@SLP(C) Nos. 12714-12715 of 2019)
Decided on : 21-01-2020
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
No benefit can be had from a subsequent notification.
No benefit can be had from a subsequent notification.
Subject
RETIREMENT - AGE OF RETIREMENT
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.309
FUNDAMENTAL RULES: R.56, R.56(a)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT: S.241(2)(b)
UTTAR PRADESH STATE MEDICAL COLLEGES TEACHERS SERVICE RULES: R.26
FUNDAMENTAL RULES: R.56, R.56(a)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT: S.241(2)(b)
UTTAR PRADESH STATE MEDICAL COLLEGES TEACHERS SERVICE RULES: R.26
Headnote
(a) Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers, Service Rules, 1990 - Rule 26 - Making Fundamental rules applicable to matters not specifically provided n the rules or in special orders - Notification dated 6 February 2015 enhancing the age of retirement to 65 years - A special order - Not ultra vires Rules 1990. (Para 15)
(b) Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers, Service Rules 1990 - Rule 26 r/w rule 56, Fundamental Rules - 'End of session benefit' - Appellant due to retire on 13 August 2014 at the age of 60 years - Appellant granted ‘end of session benefit’ and required to demit his office on 30.6.2015 - During this extended period age of retirement extended from 60 to 65 years on 6 February 2015 - Held, appellant not entitled to benefit of the enhancement of the age of retirement. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought a mandamus for his continuance in service as Professor and Head of the Department of Cardiology of the LPS Institute of Cardiology in GSVM Medical College, Kanpur until he attained the age of 65. He claimed this relief on the basis of a notification dated 6 February 2015 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh extending the age of retirement from 60 to 65 years. The appellant had before the issuance of the above government notification attained the age of superannuation of 60 years on 13 August 2014. But, in terms of a Government decision "GO" dated 19 November 2012, he had been granted a 'session benefit' of an extension of service up to 30 June 2015. Based on this extension, the appellant's case is that he is entitled to the extension in the age of retirement which has been brought about by the notification dated 6 February 2015. This claim has been repelled by the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court which is questioned in appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant is not entitled to benefit of the enhancement of the age of retirement.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :P.S. Patwalia, Sunil Gupta, M. Shoeb Alam, Siddharth Buxy, Mojahid Karim Khan, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ankit Goel, Gaurav Singh, Advocates
For the Appellant :P.S. Patwalia, Sunil Gupta, M. Shoeb Alam, Siddharth Buxy, Mojahid Karim Khan, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ankit Goel, Gaurav Singh, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims session benefit postponed superannuation entitling him to increased retirement age — Respondent contends extension is conditional and does not alter superannuation date. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Notification increasing retirement age is a special order under Rule 26 — session benefit is granted after retirement and does not postpone the date of superannuation. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Conditional extension of service granted after superannuation to prevent academic disruption does not postpone the superannuation date or entitle the employee to prospective retirement age increases. (Para 18 , 19 )
5. Appeals dismissed — appellant not entitled to enhanced retirement age — terminal benefits to be released within two months. (Para 24 )
6. Does a government notification increasing the retirement age conflict with general Fundamental Rules governing government servants?
No, if the specific service rules allow for special orders to govern matters not specifically provided, such a notification constitutes a special order and is not ultra vires the general Fundamental Rules. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. Does a session-ending benefit extension granted to medical teachers postpone the legal date of superannuation?
No. Such a benefit is granted after the employee attains the age of superannuation to prevent disruption in education. Since it is conditional upon satisfactory performance and not a deeming provision, it does not alter the actual date of retirement. (Para 17 , 18 )
8. Are employees who have already attained the age of superannuation but are on a conditional extension entitled to a subsequent increase in the retirement age?
No. An increase in the age of superannuation is prospective and applies only to those who have not yet attained the age of superannuation under the prevailing rules. (Para 19 )
9. How does a deeming provision for extension of service differ from a conditional extension in terms of superannuation?
A deeming provision legally extends the superannuation date, meaning the employee is not deemed superannuated until the end of the extended period. In contrast, a conditional extension allows continuance after retirement without altering the superannuation date. (Para 21 )
JUDGMENT
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed, by its judgment dated 2 February 2018, a Writ Petition instituted by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution. By his petition, the appellant sought a mandamus for his continuance in service as Professor and Head of the Department of Cardiology of the LPS Institute of Cardiology in GSVM Medical College, Kanpur until he attained the age of 65. He claimed this relief on the basis of a notification dated 6 February 2015 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh extending the age of retirement from 60 to 65 years. The appellant had before the issuance of the above government notification attained the age of superannuation of 60 years on 13 August 2014. But, in terms of a Government decision "GO" dated 19 November 2012, he had been granted a 'session benefit' of an extension of service up to 30 June 2015. Based on this extension, the appellant's case is that he is entitled to the extension in the age of retirement which has been brought about by the notification dated 6 February 2015. This claim has been repelled by the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court which is questioned in appeal.
2. On 1 April 1992, the UP FUNDAMENTAL RULES " FUNDAMENTAL RULES " were notified under Section 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act 1935. Rule 56 provides that:
"Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years:
Provided ..."
3. On 21 December 1990, the Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers, Service Rules 1990 "the Rules of 1990" were notified by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 9 prescribed a maximum age for recruitment in medical colleges, by direct recruitment. For Professors, it was 45 years. Among other things, the Rules made a provision for constitution of cadres in Part II, recruitment in Part III, quantifications for appointment in Part IV, procedure for recruitment in Part V and provisions for pay related matters in Part VII. The Rules did not prescribe the age of retirement. But, Rule 26 contained the following stipulation:
"26. Regulation of other matters. - In regard to the matters not specifically provided in these rules or in special orders, persons appointed to the service shall be governed by the rules, regulations and orders applicable generally to Government servants in connection with the affairs of the State."
By virtue of Rule 26 , the age of retirement of professors in medical colleges was governed by Rule 56 of the FUNDAMENTAL RULES which stipulated it as 60 years.
4. On 16 March 2005, the Medical Council of India Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations 1998" the MCI Regulations 1998" were amended in pursuance of powers conferred by the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 to incorporate an enabling provision in the following terms:
"The maximum age limit upto which a person can be appointed or granted extension or re-employed in service against the posts of Teachers or Dean or Principal or Director, as the case may be, which are required to be filled up as per the norms of the Medical Council of India in any Medical College or Teaching Institution for imparting Graduate and Post-Graduate medical education, shall be 65 years."
This provision was made in view of the shortage of medical teachers. It was amended on 17 September 2010 so as to substitute 70 years for 65 years.
5. By a decision notified on 19 November 2012, the State of Uttar Pradesh provided that Assistant Professors, Professors and Principals of Government Medical Colleges who were to retire after reaching the age of superannuation during the midst of an academic session would be granted an extension of service till the end of the session namely 30 June of the following year. This has been described as
