Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Dr. Prabhat Chandra Kalita S/o Late Dulal Chandra Kalita - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors - Respondents
WP(C)/3782/2024
Decided on : 19-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 166 - Increase of retirement age - Petitioner sought to raise retirement age from 60 to 65 years based on a Cabinet decision from 2012, which lacked formal implementation - Petitioner retired on 24.10.2019 and approached the court five years later - No enforceable order exists for retirement age extension, and petitioner did not prove appointment as a Professor - Petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Paras 11-17)
(B) Administrative Law - Cabinet decisions - Cabinet decisions must be crystallized into formal orders to be enforceable - Mere Cabinet decisions are provisional and can be reconsidered. (Paras 12-15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Principal at a private college, claimed entitlement to an extended retirement age based on a Cabinet decision but was denied by the authorities.
Findings of Court:
The Cabinet decision was not formalized into an order, making it unenforceable. The petitioner did not demonstrate appointment as a Professor.
Issues: Whether the Cabinet decision regarding retirement age extension applies to the petitioner and the implications of its lack of formalization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without a formal order, the Cabinet decision remains unenforceable, and the petitioner does not qualify for the Professor grade based solely on his Principal position.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities, to increase the retirement age of the petitioner from 60 years to 65 years and to reinstate the petitioner in service.
2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was serving as a Principal in Paschim Barigog Anchalik Mahavidyalaya, Baranghati. He submits that the said college was a private college affiliated with the Gauhati University.
3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Cabinet had taken a decision on 19.09.2012, to raise the age of retirement of all Professors of educational institutions, including medical colleges, from 60 years to 65 years. Accordingly, the petitioner’s retirement age should have been extended to 65 years. However, he was made to retire on 24.10.2019, on attaining the age of 60 years.
4. As the petitioner’s representation to the authorities for extension of his retirement age had not been decided, the petitioner filed WP(C) 6887/2019. WP(C) 6887/2019 was disposed of, vide order dated 13.09.2019, by giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the authorities, regarding his claim for enhancement of the age of superannuation, which was to be decided by the authorities concerned.
5. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 30.09.2019, in compliance of the order dated 13.09.2019 passed WP(C) 6887/2019, which was rejected by the respondents, vide letter dated 24.10.2019, issued by the Director of Higher Education, Assam.
6. The contents of the letter dated 24.10.2019 issued by the Director of Higher Education, Assam states as follows:-
“Sub: Regarding WP(C) No. 6887/2019 titled Prabhat Ch. Kalita -Vs-State of Assam and others.
Ref: Your letter dated 30-09-2019.
Sir,
With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to state that there is no Govt. order till now regarding extension of the age of superannuation to 65 years. As you are going to complete 60 years of age on 31 October, 2019 afternoon, you will retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation of 31-10-2019 positively.”
7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that similarly situated persons have had their age of superannuation extended and as such, the respondents could not have discriminated against the petitioner, by not extending his date of superannuation. He also submits that the petitioner having been appointed as a Principal of the college, he is deemed to be a Professor.
8. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the Higher Education Department submits that just because the petitioner has been appointed as a Principal does not mean that he is a Professor, since there is no appointment order against the petitioner as a Professor. He also submits that the appointment order of the petitioner as a Principal states that he is a Lecturer, which has been redesignated as Assistant Professor. He also submits that the present issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 161/2020 (Rupak Kumar Brahma vs. the State of Assam and 3 ors.), which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 01.11.2021.
9. The respondents’ counsel submits that as no Government order has been issued implementing the Cabinet decision on 19.09.2012, for raising the age of retirement of Professors, which is, in any event, not applicable to the petitioner, there is no ground to claim enhancement of the retirement age to 65 years. As such, the writ petition has no merit.
10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
11. As can be seen from the rejection of the petitioner’s representation for enhancement of his retirement age, the stand of the State respondents is that the Government has not issued any order in pursuance to the Cabinet decision on 19.09.2012, extending the age of superannuation to 65 years.
12. Article 166 of the Constitution states as follows:-
“166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State.-
(1) All executive action of the G
A Cabinet decision requires formal implementation to be enforceable; the absence of such an order renders claims based on it invalid.
Cabinet decisions require formal orders to be enforceable; without such orders, claims for retirement age extension are not valid.
The State has the discretion to frame its own laws relating to education and is not bound to accept or follow UGC regulations.
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 ....
Government Orders increasing retirement age do not apply to private school employees, as employment contracts govern such matters.
Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used ....
(1) Whether age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance age of superannuation, date with effect from which enhancement should be made falls....
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.
Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used ....
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
