SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 1495

High Court of Delhi
A.K. SIKRI & RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
Krishan Gopal & Another
Versus
Union Of India & Others
WP(C) NO. 7130 & 7939 OF 2011
Decided on : 18-05-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, Ms. Anu Tyagi, C. Mukund, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Sumeet Pushkarna, Adv. for UOI, Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for UGC, S.C. Dhanda, Advocate for JNU, Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate for UOI.

Headnote:

Service Law - Age of Superannuation for teachers - Vide notification age of teachers fixed at 65 years - Notification excludes library staff as well as staff of psychical education - Notification challenged on the plea of Right to equality - As per settled law Article 14 of Constitution of India forbids class legislation and does not forbid reasonable classification - Fixing of retirement age of an employee is the prerogative of the government and courts have no role - When a particular benefit given to one class is extended to another, would not mean that same be treated as same class for all purposes and in every respect - No justification in the reasons given by the respondents in denying the benefit of age enhancement - Matter send for fresh reconsideration - Petitioners would continue in service by virtue of interim order - Writ disposed of.

Judgment :-

A.K. SIKRI, ACJ.

1. In both the petitions, the petitioners are the employees of Jawaharlal Nehru University working as Deputy Librarian and Directors of Physical Education (DPE). They are seeking a declaration that their status be treated as that of a “teacher’and, therefore, the Notification dated 31.12.2008 vide which retirement age of teachers is fixed at 65 years should be made applicable to them also. Since this Notification specifically excludes library staff as well as staff of physical education, prayers are also made for declaring the exclusionary part of the Notification as unconstitutional.

2. Vide impugned Notification dated 31.12.2008, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education), Government of India has decided to revise the pay scales and other service conditions of the teachers in Central Universities. Since we are not concerned with revision of pay scale or other service conditions but the limited scope of these writ petitions is confined to the re-fixation of the age of superannuation for teachers, we hereby reproduce that part of the Notification:

“8. Other terms and conditions:

(a) to (e) xxx xxx xxx

(f) Age of Superannuation:

(i) In order to meet the situation arising out of shortage of teachers in universities and other teaching institutions and the consequent vacant positions therein, the age of superannuation for teachers in Central Educational Institutions has already been enhanced to sixty five years, vide the Department of Higher Education letter No.F.No.1-19/2006-U.II dated 23.3.2007, for those involved in class room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching career and to retain teachers in service for a longer period. Consequent on upward revision of the age of superannuation of teachers, the Central Government has already authorized the Central Universities, vide Department of Higher Education D.O. letter No.F.1-24/2006-Desk(U) dated 30.3.2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of Vice- Chancellors of Central Universities from 65 years to 70 years, subject to amendments in the respective statutes, with the approval of the competent authority ( Visitor in the case of Central Universities).

(ii) Subject to availability of vacant positions and fitness, teachers shall also be reemployed on contract appointment beyond the age of sixty five years up to the age of seventy years. Re-employment beyond the age of superannuation shall, however, be done selectively, for a limited period of 3 years in the first instance and then for another further period of 2 years purely on the basis of merit, experience, area of specialization and peer group review and only against available vacant positions without affecting selection or promotion prospects of eligible teachers.

(iii) Whereas the enhancement of the age of superannuation for teachers engaged in class room teaching is intended to attract eligible persons to a career in teaching and to meet the shortage of teachers by retaining teachers in service for a longer period, and whereas there is no shortage in the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education, the increase in the age of superannuation from the present sixty two years shall not be available to the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education.’

3. A reading of the aforesaid extracted portion of the Notification would clearly demonstrate that the age of superannuation for teachers in the Central educational institutions has been increased vide Notification dated 23.3.2007 “for those involved in class room teaching’. Rationale given is that the same is done “in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching careers and to retain teachers in service for a longer period’. Further rationale stated in sub-para (3) is that this enhancement in the age of superannuation for teachers engaged in class room teaching is intended to attract eligible persons to a career in teaching and to meet the shortage of teac











































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top