IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
Prof.M.Srinivasulu Reddy & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21745 of 2023
Decided On : 16-04-2024
Retrospective Application - Age of Superannuation - G.O.Ms.No.39 Higher Education (UE) - 29.07.2023 - The court discussed the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.39 Higher Education (UE) dated 29.07.2023 with retrospective effect and concluded that it is purely the executive domain. The court also held that it cannot issue a Mandamus directing the Petitioners to be re-appointed/re-instated into services. The G.O.Ms. No.52 School Education (PS) Department, dated 12.06.2023 was found inapplicable to the Writ Petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.39 Higher Education (UE) dated 29.07.2023 retrospectively, for re-instatement and consequential benefits after their superannuation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it cannot declare and give a direction that G.O.Ms.No.39 Higher Education (U.E) dated 29.07.2023 can be applied retrospectively as it is purely the executive domain. The court also concluded that it cannot issue a Mandamus directing the Petitioners to be re-appointed/re-instated into services.
Issues: The issues were whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued for reappointment or re-instatement of the Writ Petitioners who superannuated prior to 29.07.2023, and whether the analogy from G.O.Ms. No.52 School Education (PS) Department, dated 12.06.2023 can be applied for treating the gap between superannuation and re-appointment/re-instatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the issues raised by the Writ Petitioners are no more res Integra and concluded that the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Respondents were given the freedom to re-engage the services of the Writ Petitioners in the future if the State intends to review its policy decision.
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 benefits of G.O.Ms.No.39 Higher Education (UE) dated 29.07.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 5th respondent to reinstate the Petitioners similarly placed petitioners to those retired from service on or after 01.01.2022 with all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits and pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. '
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONERS:
3. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the issue of enhancement of age of superannuation for teaching faculty in the centrally funded universities from 62 to 65 years has been considered by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (the HRD Ministry), Department of Higher Education. In that sequel, the HRD Ministry has addressed a letter to the University Grants Commission (the UGC) on 23.03.2007 (Ex.P.2). The said letter stipulates that all the persons who are holding teaching posts on regular employment against the sanctioned posts as on 15.03.2007 in the centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education shall be superannuated on completion of 65 years of age. This means, that the age of superannuation of all persons who are holding teaching posts on regular employment has been enhanced from 62 to 65 years. On or about 31.12.2008, the HRD Ministry, Department of Higher Education has also conveyed its decision to revise the pay scales of the teachers in the Central Universities. This was conveyed by the HRD Ministry to the UGC.
4. The cardinal purpose for enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years is to mitigate the shortage of teachers in Universities and other teaching institutions and also to utilise the valuable human resource of teaching which is enriched by their long experience in their respective subjects.5. He would further submit that keeping in tune with these trends namely the recommendation for enhancement of age of superannuation by the HRD Ministry, Department of Higher Education, as implemented through the UGC, the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education - Respondent No.4 herein, has also recommended to the Respondent No.3 namely the Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years vide APSCHE Lr.No.APSCHE/UM-777/AP.UGCRPS-Superannuation -2nd Coomt/2014, dated 18.07.2014. The Government of Andhra Pradesh through Higher Education Department issued G.O.Ms.No.59 Higher Education (UE) Department dated 24.12.2014 (Ex.P.6) thereby enhancing the age of superannuation of regular University teachers in the State from 60 to 62 years with effect from 02.06.2014.
6. It is further submitted by the learned Sen
B. Bharat Kumar and Others Vs. Osmania University and Others (2007) 11 SCC 58
Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik
M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P. (1997) 7 SCC 592
State of U.P. v. Dayanand Chakrawarty
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.