1994 Supreme(Bom) 360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
H.W. Dhabe L. Manoharan, JJ.
Arjun Ganpatrao Mahajan.... Petitioner.
Versus
The Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth and another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1448 of 1993, decided on 13/15/19 22-7-1994.
Advocates appeared :
A.M. Gordey, for the petitioner.
A.R. Patil P.N. Chandurkar, for respondent No. 1.
B.T. Patil, G.P., for respondent No. 2

Headnote:Articles 14 and 226-Intelligible differentia-Classification of services basing on neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.

       The academic staff of the Agricultural Universities, formed a separate class regulated by separate rules relating to the conditions of service framed under the Agricultural University Act and the statutes or the rules framed thereunder. This class was based upon the intelligible differentia having rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the establishment of the separate Agricultural University under the Agricultural Universities Act. Even otherwise as shown above, the teachers in the Government Colleges affiliated to the Nagar University always formed a separate Class for the purposes of their recruitment and conditions of service. It could not thus be said that the continuance of age of retirement of 58 years for the members of the academic staff of the Agricultural University as per the Government Rules was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative Article of 14 of the Constitution.

       The determination of the age of retirement is a policy decision which has to be left to the executive or the Legislature and unless the age of retirement is fixed at an unreasonably low level so as to make it arbitrary and irrational and unless the policy of the State in this regard is otherwise bereft of any policy or is otherwise violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, there is no scope for judicial revision of its policy decision in this regard.

       MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITIES (KRISHI VIDYAPEETHS) ACT, 1983

       Section 53-Scope.

       Section 53 of the K.V. Act, 1987 which is clear in this regard provides in the sub-section (2) thereof that even after their transfers to the Agricultural Universities the permanent Government servants have lien over their posts in the Government service and, therefore, during the period of their service in the Agricultural University, if they choose to revert back to the Government service, they can do so, and their service in the University can then be counted for increments and other matters, subsection (3) of Section 53 of the said Act clearly provides for option in three ways as laid down thereunder. If the Government servant so chooses, he is permitted to retire from Government service upon which he is entitled to retirement benefits as per Government rules. His second option is that he can be permanently absorbed in the service of the Agricultural University, and his third option is that he can be permitted to revert back to the Government service upon the same terms and conditions which were applicable to him immediately before his transfer to the Agricultural University. However, he has to exercise the above options within a period of two years from the date of his transfer by giving a notice in writing to the State Government in that regard. To the same effect is the provisions in Section 53 of the P.K.V. Act. The above submission made on behalf of the petitioner that because no option is given to him to revert back to the Government service it should be held that the conditions of service as a Government servant as amended from time to time are applicable to him after his transfer to the Agricultural University, therefore, deserves to be rejected.

       In quashing the above offending part of Clause 26 of the G.R, dated 27-2-1989 the High Court held in the said case that the University and the college teachers including the teachers in the Government College formed one homogenuous class and, therefore, there was no reason to single out the teachers in the Government Colleges for the lower age of retirement at the age of 58 years when for all other University and Collages teachers the age of retirement was stipulated as 60 years as per the recommendation of the U.G.C. accepted by the Government of India. This Court pointed out that the National Policy on Education, 1986 envisaged effort to reach the desirable objective of uniform emoluments, service conditions and grievance removal mechanism for teachers through out the country. This Court thus held that when all other conditions of service a. per the G.R. dated 27-2-1989, were the same for the Government teachers and the other University and College teachers, there was no reason for making discrimination in the matter of age of retirement of the Government teachers.

       It is clear from the perusal of the judgment in the aforesaid case that the effect of the said judgment a referred to hereinbefore is prospective in the sense that it would be applicable from the date of the judgment. At any rate, since the age of retirement was laid down in Clause 26 of the aforesaid G.R. dated 27-2-1989, the remaining part of the said Clause 26 after its offending part continuing the age of retirement of 58 years for the Government teachers was struck down in the said judgment would be applicable from the date when the said G.R. dated 27-2-1989 incorporating the said Clause 26 was issued and was implemented. Even assuming that the ratio of the said judgment can be made applicable to the alleged laying down by the U.G.C. for the first time of the principle of uniform age of retirement at 60 years for the University and College teachers on the basis of the recommendation of Sen Committee the offending part relating to age of retirement of Government teachers was continued in the G.R. dated 25-10-1977 which would, therefore, stand struck down from the date of implementation of the said G.R. dated 25-10-1977. Even then, it cannot be held on the basis of the said judgment that the age of superannuation of the petitioner can be treated as 60 years on the date of his transfer and absorption a, Lecturer in the P:K.V. i.e. 16-1968, therefore, as shown hereinbefore, the service condition a regards the age of retirement of the petitioner which is guaranteed by Section 53 of the K.V. Act, 1967 or the P.K.V. Act is about his retirement at the age of 58 years a provided in the earlier Rule 161 (a) of the B.C.S.R. which was applicable at that time.

       As regards the first contention that according to Clause (vii) of Annexure 11 of the G.R. dated 17-11-1978 relating to revision of pay scales of the academic staff in the Agricultural Universities, their age of superannuation is 60 years and, therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to continue till completion of 60 years of age, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of the above G.R. dated 17-11-1978 issued by the State Government because immediately after the above G.R. dated 17-11-1978 was issued, the Slate Government by its letter dated 13-12- 1978 hereinbefore referred to, had clarified the position and had directed all the Agricultural Universities that the age of superannuation of teachers in the Agricultural Universities should be the age which had already been specified in the Statutes/Rules of the respective Agricultural Universities or as per the rules framed by the Government under the B.S.C.R. followed by the Agricultural Universities in the absence of the Statutes/Rules. It appears that the above mistake was committed by the State Government in Clause (vii) of Annexure 11 of its G.R. dated 17-11-1978 because as pointed out by it in its aforesaid letter dated 13-12-1978, it inadvertently copied the condition in the guidelines of the Government of India addressed to it which guidelines are on the pattern of the U.G.C. guidelines in respect of the non-Agricultural Colleges but as it is clear, the said guidelines are not completely given effect to by the State Government while implementing the revision of pay- scale by the U.G.C. in respect of the non-Agricultural Colleges as per its G.R. dated 25-10-1977 and also the subsequent G.R. dated 27-2-1989. It may be seen that as per the aforesaid G.Rs dated 25-10-1977 and 27-2-1989, as already shown, the age of retirement of 60 years was laid down only in regard to the teachers of the Nagpur University and non-Government College affiliated to it because for them it was already under the rules applicable to them 60 years but not to the teachers in the Government Colleges for whom it was 58 years under the rules applicable to them. The same age of retirement was thus maintained for the teachers of the University and the non Government and Government College affiliated to it.

       MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITIES (KRISHI VIDYAPEETHS) STATUTE, 1990

       Statute 91-Punjahraoo Agricultural University (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1967-Section 3-Punjahraoo Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Services Rules, 1971-Rule 10.1-Agricultural Teachers-If retirement age of 60 years ?

       Held; even the Executive Council of the P.K.V. had not accepted the said provision of Clause (vii) of Annexure" of the G.R. dated 17-11-1978 hereinbefore referred to. The age of retirement of the members of academic staff of the Agricultural Universities thus continued to be 58 years as provided in Rule 10.1 of Chapter X of the Service Rule, 1971, i.e. Statute 91 framed under Section 36 of the P.K.V. Act which Rules were then applicable to the P.K.V. employees including its academic staff. The mistake in the aforesaid Clause (vii) of Annexure 11 of the G.R. dated 17- 11-1978 thereafter corrected when at the time of the next revision of pay-scales of the academic staff of the Agricultural University as per the G.R. dated 17-3-1989, Clause 10 of Annexure 11 thereof provided that the age of retirement of the members of the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities should continue to be 58 years hitheretobefore.

       The conditions of service of the employees of the Agricultural Universities viz., P.K. V. in the instant case are governed by the provisions of the Act and the relevant Statutes or Rules framed thereunder to regulate them. Therefore, unless the action was taken by the Competent Authority under the University Act applicable to the Agricultural University to introduce the condition of service relating to the age of superannuation, on the its own force the age of retirement of 58 years contained in Clause (vii) of Annexure" of the G.R. dated 17-11-1978 could not have been made applicable to the academic staff of the Agricultural University. For all these reasons, the petitioner cannot thus get the benefit of the above Clause (vii) of Annexure" of the G.R. dated 17-11-1978 so as to claim that his age of retirement should be 60 years.