Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ
NAVIN CHANDRA DHOUNDIYAL – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3494 of 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 11189 of 2020), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3495 of 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 11055 of 2020), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3496 of 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 11023 of 2020), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3497 of 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 11014 of 2020), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3493 of 2020(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 10943 of 2020)
Decided on : 16-10-2020
University Law – Age of Superannuation of Teachers – As per Statute No. 16.24, including proviso, it is apparent that firstly each teacher attains age of superannuation on completing 65 years {Statute No. 16.24 (1)} – Secondly, no teacher who attains age of superannuation has a right or entitlement to reemployment – Opening expression “No teacher” appears to rule out reemployment of superannuated teachers {Statute No. 16.24 (2)} – Thirdly, and importantly proviso {to Statute 16.24 (2)} carves out an exception to main provision – Very object and intent of proviso to Statute No.16.24 is to avoid disruption caused by discontinuity of service of a teaching staff employee or official mid-session – Impugned judgment and orders of High Court set aside – Appellants are entitled to continue till end of following June on re-employment – If any of them has been superannuated, he shall be issued with orders of reinstatement, with full salary for period they were out of employment and allowed to continue till following June, on re-employment basis. (Paras 9, 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
The common question which arises for decision is as to the correct interpretation of a condition in respondent-University’s statutes regarding the date of superannuation of its teachers. All the appellants are working as Professors in various disciplines, in the respondent Kumaun University. They are aggrieved by an office order dated 21.12.2019 which set out their respective dates of retirement (which were the last dates in the months they attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 65 years). The appellants relied on Statute No. 16.24 of the University, applicable to them, contending that they were entitled to continue beyond the last date of the month in which each of them attained the age of superannuation, till the “30th of June following” in terms of that provision.
Findings of Court:
View of the Uttarakhand High Court, as also the Allahabad High Court (now settled by the full bench decision) consistently have been that teachers superannuating are to be treated as re-employed or allowed to continue, in the larger interest of the pupils, has prevailed. If the view that found acceptance with the impugned judgment were to prevail, there would be avoidable disruption in teaching; the likely delay in filling vacancies caused mid-session cannot but be to the detriment of the students.
Result : Appeals allowed.
ORDER :
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted. The parties were heard finally in these appeals. The common question which arises for decision is as to the correct interpretation of a condition in the respondent-University’s statutes regarding the date of superannuation of its teachers.
2. All the appellants are working as Professors in various disciplines, in the respondent Kumaun University (hereafter “the University”). They are aggrieved by an office order dated 21.12.2019 which set out their respective dates of retirement (which were the last dates in the months they attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 65 years). The appellants relied on Statute No. 16.24 of the University, applicable to them, contending that they were entitled to continue beyond the last date of the month in which each of them attained the age of superannuation, till the “30th of June following” in terms of that provision. That statute reads as follows:
"16.24 (1) The age of superannuation of a teacher of the University, whether governed by the new scale of pay or not shall be sixty-five years.
(2) No extension in service beyond the age of superannuation shall be granted to any teacher after the date of commencement of these statutes. provided that a teacher whose date of superannuation does not fall on June 30, shall continue on service till the end of the academic session, that is June 30, following and will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately following his superannuation till June, 30, following.
(Provided further that such physically and mentally fit teachers shall be reappointed for a further period of two years, after June, 30, following the date of their superannuation as were imprisoned for taking part in freedom struggle of 1942 and are getting freedom fighters pension)
Provided also that the teachers who were re-appointed in accordance with the second proviso as it existed prior to the commencement to the Kumaun University (Twenty-third amendment) First Statute, 1988 and a period of one year has not elapsed after the expiry of the period of their reemployment, may be considered for re-appointment for a further period of one year."
3. The appellants were aggrieved by the office order dated 21.12.2019 and approached the Uttarakhand High Court in writ proceedings. They argued that they were entitled to continue in service, on extension up to the end of June, 2021. They had relied on a previous judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court -Dr. Indu Singh v State of Uttarakhand, 2017 SCC Online 1527. In that judgment, the Division Bench had, on an interpretation of the relevant provisions (which were worded identically to Statute No. 16.24 as in this case) held that those who retire after 30th June are “entitled to continue till the end of the academic year”. The Division Bench placed emphasis and importance on the legislative intent “to cater to the supreme need to not adversely affect the academic activities of the institution and to safeguard the interest of the students."
4. The impugned judgment rejected the appellants’ writ petition, holding that Indu Singh2[Supra n.1] could not be considered as a binding authority. It was also held that Statute No. 16.24 applies to the teachers of the university. The Division Bench said that Statute No. 16.24 (2) specifically places an embargo on extension in service beyond the age of superannuation. Statute No. 16.24 (2.1) – according to the Division Bench, merely provided that if the superannuation were not to fall on June, 30th, the teacher shall continue in the service till end of the academic session i.e. June, 30th and the same will be treated as re-employment. The Division Bench was of the opinion that whenever the superannuation of an employee falls within the month of June, in that event, his or her retirement would stand extended till the end of June of that particular month. The words used "of the end of the academic session", was held to be “misleading”. Further, according to
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
