Point of Law: increasing the age of superannuation only in the case of Professors, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as alleged, for the simple reason that whereas equals cannot be treated as unequals, by the same logic, unequal also cannot be treated as equals.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Heard Mr. KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P Borah, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. TC Chutia, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr. NC Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A Das, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 and Mr. A Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, UGC, for respondent Nos.8 and 9.

2. This writ appeal has been filed by an Associate Professor of Dibrugarh University (now retired), retired during the pendency of the writ appeal. The writ appellant was an Associate Professor in Dibrugarh University, which is a State University. The petitioner was aggrieved by an order passed by the Government of Assam (which had the approval of the State Cabinet), wherein it was decided that the age of retirement of all Professors of educational institutions including medical college stands increased to 65 years. The grievance of the petitioner was that although the age of superannuation was being increased from 60 to 65 years but this benefit was given only to Professors. In other words, it left out Associate Professors and Assistant Professors as in their case the retirement was to be same, i.e. 60 years as was earlier. The case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that by increasing the retirement age in case of Professors from 60 to 65 years and denying this benefit to other teachers, such as Associate Professors and Assistant Professors, amounts to a discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, it was argued that this increase in the age of retirement is subsequent to the recommendation made by the Government of India which had already increased the age of retirement of all the “teaches” in Central Universities from 60 to 65 years and had recommended that the State Universities may also follow the same and increase the retirement age in case of all teachers. The case of the petitioner would be that the recommendation for increasing the age was for all “teachers” which would include the Associate Professors and Assistant Professors then why was it being limited to Professors alone, and it was further argued that this exclusion has never been explained by the State.

3. The case of the State Government, on the other hand, was that the recommendation of the Central Government and the UGC was only directory and not mandatory in nature. Moreover, the Central Government itself has specified that the State Government would be at liberty to increase the age of Professors subject to the specific condition prevailing in the State. A conscious decision was hence taken by the State Government to only increase the age of superannuation in case of Professor and Associate Professor and Assistant Professor were consciously left out for the following reasons;

Firstly, the State was not having enough funds which would be required to pay the salary, which would thus increase in case of all the teachers.

Secondly, this benefit has been granted only in the category of Professor as there was a shortage of Professors in any case and therefore, it was in public interest to retain Professors for three more years.

Thirdly, if the date of superannuation of all teachers is increased, the unemployed youth will have to wait for a longer period which would cause a heart burning and distress among the eligible but unemployed candidates looking for employment avenues in higher education.

4. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and moreover, the learned Single Judge was also of the opinion that the issue such as fixing of age of superannuation of an employee is a matter of public policy and it is for the government to decide as to what should be the age of superannuation.

5. Aggrieved by order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the