Back
G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
Prof. M. Srinivasulu Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J. - Heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri V.R.N. Prasanth, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners; Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, assisted by Sri C.B. Adarsh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education-Respondent No.3; Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel for S.V.U-Respondent No.5; Sri M. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Dravidian University - Respondent No.7; Smt. M. Manikya Veena, learned Standing Counsel for SPMVV -Respondent No.8; Sri Kari Basaiah, learned Standing Counsel for S.K University - Respondent No.9; Sri M. Murali Lincoln, learned Standing Counsel for A.N.U - Respondent No.10; Sri Penjuri Venugopal, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU -Respondent No.11; Sri T. Niranjan, learned Standing Counsel for Y.V.U - Respondent No.12.
2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under:-
'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending
The court established that teaching staff have a right to enforce the statutory age of superannuation of 65 years, as per the University Grants Commission regulations.
The enhancement of retirement age is a policy matter for the State Government and is not automatically applicable to all educational institutions under its governance without amendments to respective....
Changes to retirement age rules are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.
The extension of the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation is a policy decision of the Government, but it cannot be used to discriminate against certain employees.
The age of superannuation is governed by the specific bylaws of an institution, dictated by policy decisions of the State government.
The Court held that the enhancement of age of superannuation to 62 years is a policy decision of the State Government and does not automatically apply to employees governed by independent Bye-laws.
Regulations framed under Clause (g) of Section 26, which dealt with regulation and maintenance of standards and regulation of facilities in Universities.
The court established that the definition of 'Teacher' under the Uttar Pradesh University Act includes the petitioner, entitling him to retirement benefits at 65 years.
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
