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

1989 Supreme(AP) 226

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : UPENDRA LAL WAGHRAY, YOGESHWAR DAYAL
P.S.Ramamoliana Rao - Appellant
Versus
A.P.Agricultural University - Respondent
Decided On : 04-28-89

A Physical Director is not a teacher within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963, and therefore, is not entitled to the retirement age of 60 years applicable to teachers.

Headnote:

RETIREMENT AGE - PHYSICAL DIRECTOR - ANDHRA PRADESH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY ACT, 1963 (ACT 24 OF 1963) - SECTIONS 2(N), 38(F), 33 - ANDHRA PRADESH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS, 1965 - REGULATION 33 - WHETHER A PHYSICAL DIRECTOR IS A TEACHER - AGE OF RETIREMENT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Physical Director in the service of the A. P. Agricultural University, challenged the University's decision to retire him at the age of 58 years, arguing that as a teacher, he was entitled to continue till the age of 60 years in accordance with the University's regulations.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was not a teacher within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963, and therefore, was not entitled to the retirement age of 60 years applicable to teachers.

Issues: 1. Whether a Physical Director is a teacher within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 2(n) of the Act to mean that a teacher is a person appointed or recognized by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension programs. 2. The court found that the petitioner did not fall within any of these categories and therefore, was not a teacher.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition has been referred to a Bench by the orders of a learned Single Judge dated 1st September, 1988. The controversy involved is whether the petitioner who is working as a Physical Director in the service of the A. P. Agricultural University and working in the college of veterinary Sciences, Tirupati, is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years in accordance with the regulations of the University. We have heard the counsel for the parties at some length.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was appointed on 4-8-1956 as a physical Director in the Government College at Bapatla Subsequently on the formation of A. P. Agricultural University under the Act of the State legislature (Act 24 of 1963), this college was transferred by the Government to the University along with the staff members working in this college in the year 1969. Subsequently, the petitioner was given an option and he chose to come over to the University Service. The petitioner s pay was fixed in the fourth plan U. G. C. scale. The teaching staff in the University retire on superannuation on their attaining the age of 60 years while the non-teaching staff except certain categories like attenders etc. , retire at the age of 58 years. According to the petitioner, the Physical Director is a teacher and therefore, in accordance with the regulations applicable to the teachers, he is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years.

( 3 ) THE Case of the University is that a Physical Director is not a teacher and being a member of the non-teaching staff, he has to retire on reaching the age of 58 years in accordance with the regulations of the university. The petitioner s date. of birth is 9-8-1930 and he has already attained the age of 58 years. But by virtue of interloculatory orders granted in the W. P. M. P. which was presented on 19-8-1988 he is still continuing in service. The University has filed a petition to vacate the stay and also an additional affidavit in opposition to the Writ Petition and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the previous decisions of this court in W. P. Nos. 1009, 1385, 3368 of 1983 dated 28-2-1986 and also in W. P. Nos. 204 and 207 of 1980 dated 1-9-1980 and W. P. No. 11524 of 1984 dated 27-2-1987 confirmed in W. A. No. 476 of 1987 on 13-4-1989, he is entitled to continue till he reaches the age of 60 years. He has also placed reliance upon a memorandum dated 29-7-1966 addressed by the Joint Registrar (Admn.) of the University to the Principals of Colleges under the University to the effect that the Physical Directors working in the Universities come under the category of teaching staff and their age of retirement has been prescribed under A. P. Agricultural University (conditions of service) Regulations, 1965. He also contends that the physical Directors working in several Universities of the State are allowed to continue till the age of 60 years and it is not proper that the petitioner and the other Physical Directors in Agricultural University are considered as non-teaching staff and treated in a discriminatory manner. It is also pointed out by him that recently in G. O. Ms. No. 91 (Edn.) dated 26-3-1987, the Government have given the Physical Directors working in Degree colleges in the State the scale of pay of Rs. 700-1600 on the conditions mentioned in the said G. O.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the University points out that none of the aforesaid decisions were with reference to the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural university and the controversy as to whether a Physical Director is a teacher has to be decided according to the statutory provisions applicable and there is no question of discrimination among employees of different universities.

( 6 ) IT is useful to extract Section 2 (n) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural university Act, 1963, (Act No. 24 of 1963) (For short the Act ) which reads as follows:"teacher" includes a profes


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