Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 756
Andhra Pradesh High Court
N.V. RAMANA, J.
A. Jagan Mohan Rao - Appellant
Versus
Kakatiya University, Warangal - Respondent
WP Nos.1601 of 2003,7577 and 24940 of 2004, 13513, 13536, 18830,22683,25488 of 2005, 1195,4955,7163,8173,8225, 15146, 20319 of 2006 and 3727 and 5747 of 2007
Decided on: 03-08-2007
Advocate Appeared
Counsel appeared: P.R Prasad,
Counsel for the Petitioner in all the Cases;
Deepak Bhattacharjee, (SC) for Kakatiya University, Counsel for the Respondent in all the Cases.
Headnote:(A) Kakatiya University Act 1976, Sections 44-A, 44-A(b); Osmania University Act 1959, Section 38(1). Age of Retirement-The petitioners, admittedly, neither opted for their retention in the service of Osmania University nor absorption in Kakatiya University. By operation of Section 44-A(b) of Kakatiya University Act, they became employees of Kakatiya University and were governed by the said service. They having become employees of Kakatiya University, cannot contend that they should be extended the benefit, which had arisen as a consequence of the interpretation of a provision under the Osmania University Act, by the Supreme Court. Even under the proviso to Section 44-A(b) of the Kakatiya University Act, the option exercised by the employees, is for their absorption in the service of the Kakatiya University under the same terms and conditions, which shall not be less favourable than those applicable to them prior to the date of such transfer from Osmania University. Benefits extended to the employees of Osmania University is subsequent to and not prior to the date of transfer of the petitioners from Osmania University to Kakatiya University petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the extended age of superannuation of 60 years. [Para 16]
(B) Revised Pension Rules 1980; Liberalised Pension Rules 1961. Benefit of extended age of superannuation under Liberalised Pension Rules is not available to petitioners after having opted for benefit of Revised Pension Rules. Petitioners cannot claim extended age of superannuation up to 60 years as provided under Liberalised Pension Rules. [Para 15]
(C) Constitution of India- Article 226- Challenge to maintainability of writ petition on the ground of Non-joinder of necessary parties. Writ petitions filed by employees of Kakatiya University seeking relief of extended age of superannuation. University, though an autonomous body, dependant on grant provided by Government. Relief sought by petitioner has financial implication, which is a recurring liability. Without Government being made a party to writ petitions, petitions are liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. (State Government) [Para 18]
AIR 1992 SC 1100; AIR 1976 SC 2428; 2002 (1) ALD 675- Referred.
The petitioners, who were employees of the constituent colleges of Osmania University and absorbed in the service of Kakatiya University upon its creation, filed the present writ petitions aggrieved by the action of Kakatiya University in retiring them on attaining the age of 58 years as per the service conditions of employees of Kakatiya University, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the Kakatiya University to continue them in service till they attained the age of 60 years as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Osmania University v. V.S. Muthurangam, AIR 1997 SC 2758 = 1997 (4) ALD (SCSN) 40.
2. The petitioners were initially appointed in different categories of posts in Arts and Science (Day and Evening) College and Law College situated in Warangal, Osmania University, during the years 1970-72. While so, a new University, known as Kakatiya University, came to be created vide Act 44 of 1976. Consequent upon creation of Kakatiya University, the Kakatiya University Act was amended in 1978 and a new provision, namely Section 44-A was inserted. By virtue of Section 44-A of the Kakatiya University Act, the constituent colleges of Osmania University, in which the petitioners were working, were brought under the administrative control and management of Kakatiya University.
3. The Registrar of Kakatiya University, having regard to the proviso appended to Section 44-A(b) of the Kakatiya University Act, vide circular dated 1.4.1978, called upon the employees of the constituent colleges of Osmania University to exercise their option in the prescribed proforma as to whether they desired to be retained in the service of Osmania University or absorbed in the service of Kakatiya University, within a period of 30 clear days, failing which he/she shall be deemed to have opted to the service of Kakatiya University, and the option once made shall be final. Acting on the said circular, some of the employees of the constituent colleges of Osmania University exercised their option to be retained in the service of Osmania University while some others did not.
4. The petitioners state that irrespective of whether the employees of the constituent colleges of Osmania University exercised their option or not, by operation of Section 44-A of the Kakatiya University Act, all employees shall be deemed to have become employees of Kakatiya University. The petitioners state that they having not exercised their option, were absorbed in the service of Kakatiya University, and were also given promotions from time to time.
5. While the petitioners were continuing in the service of Kakatiya University, the non-teaching staff of Osmania University aggrieved by the action of Osmania University in not extending the age of superannuation of non-teaching staff from 58 to 60 years on par with the teaching staff, having regard to the provisions of Section 38(1) of the Osmania University Act, 1959, which provides that save as otherwise provided, every salaried officer and teacher of the University shall be appointed under a written contract, and the conditions of service relating to them shall, as far as possible be uniform except in respect of salaries payable to them. The relief claimed by the said non teaching staff of Osmania University was allowed by a learned Judge of this High Court, which was even confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench. Aggrieved thereby, Osmania University moved the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court, in Osmania University v. V.S. Muthurangam (supra), having interpreted the provisions of Section 38(1) of the Osmania University Act, upheld the decision of this High Court and dismissed the appeal. By virtue of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the non-teaching staff of Osmania University are being retired at the age of 60 years.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioners
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that irrespective of whether the employees of th
