Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, P. KRISHNA BHAT, JJ.
Dr. Chidananda P. Mansur S/o Parappa M. Mansur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. through its Secretary – Respondent
W.A. No. 100198 of 2022, W.P. No. 101937 of 2022
Decided On : 01-06-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 254 - University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 39 , 14 and 26 - Retirement for Teachers in all Agricultural Universities - service - Benefits is enhanced age of retirement - Appellant/petitioner, in support of his case, banks upon the UGC Regulations promulgated in terms of the 2017 recommendations made by Pay Review Committee - Contends that after the 42nd Amendment, education figures in List-3, Schedule VII of Constitution of India UGC Regulations, 2018 partaking character of Central Law override the impugned statute of University, which is State Law, and that prescribe 65 years as the age of retirement for Teachers in all Agricultural Universities and their constituent Colleges - Learned Senior Advocate appearing for appellant/petitioner in support of his submission invoked certain decisions of Apex Court - Appellant/petitioner essentially contending that the subject UGC Regulations do not mandatorily prescribe 65 years as age of superannuation for employees of Agricultural Universities established under State Legislations; even in the UGC Pay Package, an option is given to these Universities to adopt the said age – Held, Public Servants like teachers in Universities/ constituent colleges should retire is purely within the domain of State Executive, which bears expenditure towards salary, emoluments terminal benefits. In matters like this, a host of financial & other factors enter the fray of decision making and Courts cannot readily venture interference, worth of such factors not being assessable by judicially manageable standards - UGC, in its wisdom, has left to State Universities to prescribe age of superannuation, as already mentioned - Concession if at all that be, is not put in challenge by appellant/petitioner - right perspective has rendered the impugned judgment, which cannot be faltered on grounds urged before us - Appellant/ petitioner has miserably failed to show that this judgment is wrong in any way and much less is otherwise unsustainable – Court have not adverted to the decisions treated by learned Single Judge inasmuch as we are in complete agreement with way he has construed ratio thereo - Appellant/petitioner cannot draw much milk from observations made therein - It hardly needs to be stated that a case is an authority for proposition that it lays down in a given fact matrix - writ appeal rejected.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
1. The intra-court appeal in W.A. No. 100198/2022 is filed by a non-party to the Writ Petition No. 10638/2021 and Writ Petition 10628/2021 with leave of the Court calls in question the Judgment dated 28.04.2022 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby petitioners’ prayer for a direction to continue them in service till they attain the age of 65 years, in terms of the age of retirement prescribed by the extant UGC Regulations, 2018, has been negatived.
2. The companion case in W.P. No. 101937/2022 is filed by the appellant himself who happens to be a Dean in the College of Agricultural Sciences. He inter-alia seeks to lay a challenge to Clause 30(8) of the University Statutes, 1964, which prescribes 62 years as the age of superannuation. He has also sought for a direction to continue him in service till he attains the age of 65 years in terms of UGC Regulations, 2018 and the Central Government Order dated 02.11.2017.
3. On request, learned GA appears for the respondent-State Government; learned Panel Advocates appear for the respondent-University, UGC, AICTE & ICMR. No notice is issued to the private respondents No. 14 & 15, who were the writ petitioners, who lost their case at the hands of learned Single Judge. Liberty is reserved to them to challenge the impugned order independently.
4. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS:
(ii) The appellant/petitioner, in support of his case, banks upon the UGC Regulations, 2018, promulgated in terms of the 2017 recommendations made by the Pay Review Committee. In substance, he contends that after the 42nd Amendment, education figures in List-3, Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, the UGC Regulations, 2018 partaking the character of Central Law override the impugned statute of the University, which is the State Law, and that prescribe 65 years as the age of retirement for the Teachers in all Agricultural Universities and their constituent Colleges. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. V. Lakshminarayana, appearing for the appellant/petitioner in support of his submission invoked certain decisions of Apex Court.
(iii) Learned GA appearing for the State and learned Panel Counsel appearing for the University resist the case of appellant/petitioner essentially contending that the subject UGC Regulations do not mandatorily prescribe 65 years as the age of superannuation for the employees of Agricultural Universities established under the State Legislations; even in the UGC Pay Package, an option is given to these Universities to adopt the said age, if they so wish; the respondent-University having prescribed 62 years as the age of retirement consistent with the Government Order dated 28.10.2009, the appellant/petitioner is not justified in seeking relief of the kind, to the contrary.
(iv) Learned GA vehemently contends that the age of retirement is a condition of service; it is regulated by the provisions of the University Statutes which are promulgated under the provisions of State Enactment; the UGC Regulations leave the prescription of retirement age to the will of the University; that being the position, the question of repugnancy between the Central Law and the State Law even remotely does not arise; lastly, even the State Government has prescribed 62 years as the age of superannuation for these employees, which the University has adopted. Both, the Panel Co
Article 309 of Constitution of India deals with conditions of Service which include age of superannuation.
The UGC Regulations apply to universities and colleges receiving substantial financial assistance from the State Governments and cannot be enforced on private unaided institutions. The age of superan....
Hon’ble Supreme Court has already found that “UGC Regulations” had undergone a change, consequent to decision of Government of India mentioned above and , an argument on contrary is tenuous.
Regulations framed under Clause (g) of Section 26, which dealt with regulation and maintenance of standards and regulation of facilities in Universities.
(1) It is mandatory for UGC to be guided by directions issued by Central Government on questions of policy relating to national purposes by discharging its functions under UGC Act, 1956.(2) A Judgmen....
UGC Regulations prescribing superannuation at 62 years for college teachers not binding on State Government employees unless expressly adopted by State via service rule amendments.
University Grants Commission Regulations on superannuation are recommendatory and not binding on state universities, allowing discretion in their implementation.
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.
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
