The main legal point established in the judgment is that the classification of pensioners based on the age of retirement is not necessarily arbitrary or discriminatory, and each case must be decided based on its specific facts and legal framework.

C.S. Rajan, J.

In all these cases a common question arises as to whether the teachers in private colleges who had opted for retirement at the age of 60 under the relevant University Statutes but who had completed 55 years are eligible to come under the U.G.C. Scheme. The Government in Ext. P-7 (OP. 9624/911 has taken the view that the petitioners who come under the above category are not eligible to come under the U.G.C. Scheme.

2. A brief back-ground of the case will be advantageous to adjudicate the issues involved in these cases.

In 1972 the Government introduced direct payment of salaries in private colleges. The Kerala University issued its First Statute in respect of pension, provident fund, gratuity, insurance and age of retirement covering all the teachers in the private colleges. Other Universities in Kerala also issued similar Statutes or adopted the Statutes issued by the Kerala University. According to the above Statutes, compulsory retirement on superannuation will be 55 years. But a provision was made for giving option to the teachers of private colleges who had entered service prior to 1.4.1958 to retire at the age of 60 years. Private college teachers who entered service on or after 1.4.1958 were given pensionary benefits contemplated in the Statutes. Under the Statutes the service after 55 years would not be counted for the purpose of calculating the retirement benefits. There is considerable disparity between the retirement benefits of those who retired at the age of 55 and who opted to continue till the age of 60 years. In 1987 U.G.C. Scheme was sought to be introduced in the State. Under the above scheme the age of superannuation is 60 years. The Universities are also ordered to re-employ them till 60 years. U.G.C. Scheme was implemented in the State with effect from 1.1.1986. But there was a clause in the above order implementing the U.G.C. Scheme to the effect that the retirement age would continue as at present.

3. According to Ext P-4 Government Order (OP. 9624/91) introducing the U.G.C. Scheme senior most 52% of the teachers were included in the U.G.C. Scheme. Persons who come within the 48% can aspire to be included in the U.G.C. Scheme as and when vacancies arise.

4. Persons like the petitioners approached this Court on an earlier occasion and this Court directed the Government to take a decision as to whether the group represented by the petitioners is entitled to get the benefit of U.G.C. Scheme. Thus Ext. P-7 in O.P. No. 9624 of 1991 happened to be passed.

5. According to the petitioners, the exclusion of the group of the petitioners from the U.G.C. Scheme is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The above discrimination was further elucidated and explained by learned counsel for the petitioners as follows: The impugned order makes a classification between teachers in Private Colleges who retired at the age of 55 and who retired at the age of 60. The remuneration and other emoluments payable to these two groups of teachers were not different in material particulars. It is clearly on account of historical reasons that these classes of teachers came into existence. As a matter of fact the U.G.C. Scheme evisages that all teachers need retire only at the age of 60 years. It was further argued that the classification of these teachers as those who retire at the age of 55 and those who retire at the age of 60 has no nexus at all with the objects sought to be achieved by the implementation of the U.G.C. Scheme.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued on the basis of various rulings of the Supreme Court that the classification founded on the age of retirement is arbitrary and discriminatory. All the cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioners relate to granting of pensionary benefits. It is also pertinent to point out that the basic decision either relied on or explained in these decisions is D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130