The classification of Government teachers as a separate category from other teachers for the purpose of age of superannuation was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and the Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989, which prescribed different ages of superannuation for Government teachers and other teachers, was discriminatory and could not be sustained.

Headnote:
DESHPANDE M.S., J.:—By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek--(i) a declaration that the petitioners belong to Maharashtra Education Class-I (Collegiate Branch) designated as Professors, (ii) their equation with Lecturers (Junior Scale) under the Government Resolution, dated October 25, 1977 and their superannuation before completing the age of 60 years, be quashed, (iii) to equate the pay scales of the petitioners with those of Readers in the Universities and Principals in the affiliated colleges, and give consequential benefits to the petitioners as stipulated by the Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989, (iv) to superannuate the petitioners at the age of 60 years, without subjecting them to a review at the age of 50 and 55 years, as required by Rule 161(C-a) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules ("BCSR" for short), by Clause 26 of the Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989, and (v) to quash Rule 161 of the BCSR as ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, so far as it relates to the teachers in Government Colleges such as the petitioners and to direct that the age of superannuation of the teachers in Government Colleges shall be 60 years.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, a group of Maharashtra Educational Service Class-II Officers (Collegiate Branch), sought a declaration that they belong to Maharashtra Education Class-I (Collegiate Branch) designated as Professors, and that their equation with Lecturers (Junior Scale) under the Government Resolution, dated October 25, 1977, and their superannuation before completing the age of 60 years, be quashed. They also sought to equate their pay scales with those of Readers in the Universities and Principals in the affiliated colleges, and to superannuate them at the age of 60 years, without subjecting them to a review at the age of 50 and 55 years. Additionally, they sought to quash Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules (BCSR) as ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, insofar as it relates to teachers in Government Colleges, and to direct that the age of superannuation of teachers in Government Colleges shall be 60 years.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the classification of Government teachers as a separate category from other teachers for the purpose of age of superannuation was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It held that the Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989, which prescribed different ages of superannuation for Government teachers and other teachers, was discriminatory and could not be sustained. The Court also held that Rule 161 of the BCSR, which prescribed the age of superannuation for Government servants at 58 years, was not applicable to Government teachers, and that their age of superannuation would be governed by the provisions of Clause 26 of the Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989.
Issues: 1. Whether the classification of Government teachers as a separate category from other teachers for the purpose of age of superannuation was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989, which prescribed different ages of superannuation for Government teachers and other teachers, was discriminatory and could be sustained? 3. Whether Rule 161 of the BCSR, which prescribed the age of superannuation for Government servants at 58 years, was applicable to Government teachers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification of Government teachers as a separate category from other teachers for the purpose of age of superannuation was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because: a) There was no rational basis for distinguishing between Government teachers and other teachers in the matter of age of superannuation. b) The Government had not provided any material to show that Government teachers were similarly situated with the other categories of Government servants to whom Rule 161 of the BCSR applied. c) The Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989, which treated all teachers on par and as forming one class, contradicted the differential treatment given to Government teachers in the matter of age of superannuation. 2. The Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989, which prescribed different ages of superannuation for Government teachers and other teachers, was discriminatory and could not be sustained because: a) It violated the principle of equal treatment for similarly situated persons. b) It was not based on any rational or intelligible differentia. c) It did not have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Resolution, which was to improve the standards of teaching and maintain uniformity in emoluments and service conditions for teachers. 3. Rule 161 of the BCSR, which prescribed the age of superannuation for Government servants at 58 years, was not applicable to Government teachers because: a) The Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989, which governed the service conditions of Government teachers, did not incorporate Rule 161 of the BCSR. b) Rule 161 of the BCSR itself provided for exceptions to the general rule of superannuation at the age of 58 years, and Government teachers could be considered as falling within one of these exceptions.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the last sentence in paragraph 26 of the Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989, which prescribed the age of superannuation for Government teachers at 58 years, and declared that the cases of Government teachers would be governed by the remaining portion of Clause 26 ibid. The Court also held that Rule 161 of the BCSR would stand modified to the extent that the age of superannuation for Government teachers would be as prescribed by Clause 26 of the Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989.

JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE M.S., J.:—By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek--(i) a declaration that the petitioners belong to Maharashtra Education Class-I (Collegiate Branch) designated as Professors, (ii) their equation with Lecturers (Junior Scale) under the Government Resolution, dated October 25, 1977 and their superannuation before completing the age of 60 years, be quashed, (iii) to equate the pay scales of the petitioners with those of Readers in the Universities and Principals in the affiliated colleges, and give consequential benefits to the petitioners as stipulated by the Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989, (iv) to superannuate the petitioners at the age of 60 years, without subjecting them to a review at the age of 50 and 55 years, as required by Rule 161(C-a) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules ("BCSR" for short), by Clause 26 of the Government Resolution, dated 27th February, 1989, and (v) to quash Rule 161 of the BCSR as ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, so far as it relates to the teachers in Government Colleges such as the petitioners and to direct that the age of superannuation of the teachers in Government Colleges shall be 60 years.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is an Association of Maharashtra Educational Service Class-II Officers (Collegiate Branch) which represents the members of the said service in the employment of the State Government and was recognised by the Government of Maharashtra by its Resolution, dated 29-4-1969. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 are the member of the Maharashtra Educational Service Class-II Officers (Collegiate Branch) and also the members of petitioner No. 1. The petition purports to be filed in a representative capacity on behalf of the members of the Maharashtra Educational Service Class-II (Collegiate Branch).

3. In pursuance of the report of the University Grants Commission ('UGC' for short), for the year 1966-67, recommending revision of pay scales to over all categories and grades of teachers employed in the Universities and affiliated Colleges, the teachers came to be divided into two groups one of the University Teachers and the second of the teachers in the Affiliated Government and non-Government Arts, Science and Commerce and Secondary Training Colleges. The University teachers were put in three categories, the revised pay scales recommended for them being respectively--

(1) Professor : Rs. 1100--1600

(2) Reader : Rs. 700--1250

(3) Lecturer : Rs. 400-- 950

For the second group, five categories were provided as below :--

(1) Principal : Revised Scale

(i) Rs. 700--1100

(ii) Rs. 800--1250

(2) Senior Lecturers : Rs. 700--1100

(3) Lecturer Senior Scale : Rs. 400-- 800

(4) Lecturer Junior Scale : Rs. 300-- 600

(5) Demonstrator and Tutors : Rs. 250-- 400

Under the recommendations of the UGC, these pay scales were to be effective from 1-4-1966. The Government of Maharashtra by Resolution No. UGC-1116-U, dated 6-11-1967, made these scales applicable to the different categories of teachers in the Universities and affiliated Colleges and under that Resolution, all Professors, Heads of the Departments and Lecturers in different pay scales in affiliated Colleges were to be given in the first instance, junior scale of Rs. 300-600.25 percent of the posts being in the senior scale of Rs. 400-800, and out of the total number of lecturers, not more than 25 percent, were to be given scale of Rs. 700-1100.

On 10-12-1968, the State Government issued a Resolution No. MES-1168-(I)-(D) towards the implementation of its earlier resolution dated 6-11-1967, directing the distribution of the existing Maharashtra Educational Service Class-I and Class-II posts (Collegiate Branch) in Government Arts, Commerce and Science Colleges, to be made subject-wise, providing further that the grade of Rs. 700-1100 should be classified as belonging to Maharashtra Educational Service Class-I ('MES Class-I' for short) and s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis