Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2816
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.MANIKUMAR and M.VENUGOPAL, JJ.
R.Balakrishnan and Ors. – Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, (Department of Personnel and Training) and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.Nos.8935, 12143, 12456, 13688, 14350, 14550 and 18073 of 2014 W.P.Nos.18210, 18211, 23490 and 27225 of 2015 M.P.Nos.1of 2014 M.P.Nos.1 of 2015.
Decided On : 04.09.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr.G.Sankaran, Mr.M.V.Muralidaran, Mr.A.R.Suresh, M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates, Mr.A.R.Suresh
For Respondent:Mr.V.T.Balaji, CGSPC, Mr.Arokiasamy, Government Advocate, Mr.G.Thilagavathi, Mr.Abdul Saleem, Mr.V.T.Balaji, CGSPC, Mr.S.Vijayakumar
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14, 16 and 313 Non teaching staff wanted to make changes in their superannuation age at par with the teaching staff according to the UGC rules – State in this matter made age as 60 years for superannuation for the basic staff and for other fixed it at 58 years for which present writ is filed by the non teaching staff – it is relevant to mention that the non teaching staff does not get governed by the UGC norms which is operated for the teaching staff – Held that the non teaching staff can not file such a writ and get the superannuation age same as the teaching staff – hence the present writ is not accepted and thus dismissed.
The legal analysis of the issue regarding the age of superannuation of non-teaching staff in universities and related institutions reveals that the powers to determine service conditions, including retirement age, primarily rest with the respective State Governments and the universities themselves, as per their statutory Acts, regulations, and statutes (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The recommendations of the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Central Government, such as raising the retirement age for teaching staff to 60 or 62 years, are voluntary and non-binding for the universities and states unless explicitly incorporated into statutory rules or orders (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The implementation of such recommendations depends on the financial implications and policy decisions of the State Governments and the universities, which are within their constitutional and statutory powers (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the service conditions, including the age of superannuation, are governed by the specific statutes, regulations, and rules enacted or framed by the universities under their statutory authority (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . These statutes often classify staff into different categories or classes, with distinct retirement ages based on the nature of duties, classifications, and service conditions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The constitutional distribution of powers, as per the legislative lists, indicates that the Union and State legislatures have separate domains, with the Union primarily responsible for standards in higher education and research institutions, while the States regulate service conditions, including retirement ages, under their legislative competence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The doctrine of pith and substance and the principles of constitutional law support that unless there is direct conflict or repugnancy, the State's power to fix service conditions remains valid and within its constitutional scope (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Decisions affirm that the fixation of different retirement ages for various categories of staff, such as teaching and non-teaching, is a valid classification based on their duties, nature of service, and service classification, and does not violate the principles of equality or non-discrimination under the Constitution, provided the classification has a rational nexus with the object to be achieved (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Additionally, the courts have consistently held that policy decisions related to service conditions, including retirement age, are within the domain of the executive and legislative authorities, and courts are generally reluctant to interfere unless there is arbitrariness or violation of constitutional rights (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the fixing of the superannuation age for non-teaching staff in universities by the respective State Governments and universities, based on their statutory powers and policy considerations, is legally valid. The recommendations or guidelines from the Central or Union authorities are voluntary and do not impose a mandatory obligation on the universities or the State Governments to uniformly adopt higher retirement ages for non-teaching staff. Therefore, such service conditions, as fixed by the respective statutes and regulations, stand on solid constitutional and legal footing, and courts are unlikely to interfere unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles or arbitrariness.
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
In W.P.No.8935 of 2014 and W.P.No.27225 of 2015, non-teaching staffs of Bharathiar University, have questioned Statute 9 of the Service Statutes in Volume 2 Chapter XVIII of Bharathiar University Act, prescribing the age of retirement for non-teaching staff as 58 years.
2. In W.P.No.12143 of 2014, the petitioner has sought for a declaration, declaring Chapter XXIV of the Madras University Act, as unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary, insofar as fixing the age of retirement as 58 years for non-teaching staff working in Madras University and that it should be extended as 60 years, for employees of the superior establishment also.
3. In W.P.Nos.14550 and 18073 of 2014, the petitioners, nonteaching staff of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, have sought to declare Regulation 24 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Regulations, insofar as the age of superannuation of University employees, other than teachers at 58 years of age, is concerned, as ex facie illegal.
4. In W.P.Nos.12456, 13688 and 14350 of 2014 and W.P.Nos.18210, 18211 and 23490 of 2015, the petitioners, non-teaching staff of the Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, have sought for a Declaration, declaring Regulation No.24 of the Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Regulations, insofar as the age of superannuation of other employees, who are borne under the Tamilnadu Government service rules, and are recruited against permanent or temporary posts of the University and those who are transferred and allotted to the University from TNAU/Government department, at 58 years of age is concerned as ex facie illegal.
5. Sum and substance of the case of the petitioners is that the statutes of the Universities or the Regulations, as the case may be, fixing the age of non-teaching staff, except in the case of Office Assistants and Provisionalised Mazdoors, transferred from Government Department and appointed by the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Bharathiar University and Madras University, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, when teaching staff of the said Universities are allowed to retire on attaining the age of 60 years.
6. Contention of the non-teaching staff of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University is that prescription of age of superannuation of University employees, other than teachers, be governed by the provisions of the State Government, as 58 years, except for the Office Assistants and Provisionalised Mazdoors transferred from Government Departments, as 60 years, is discriminatory. According to them, the age of superannuation should be 60 years, for all the employees of the Universities, whether teaching or non-teaching staff.
7. Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for non-teaching staff of the Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, as well as, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (petitioners in W.P.Nos.12456, 13688, 14350, 14550 and 18073 of 2014 and W.P.Nos.18210, 18211 and 23490 of 2015), submitted that the Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal sciences University Act 1989 (Tamil Nadu act 42 of 1989) was enacted by the State Legislature, with effect from 19.09.1989, and by virtue of and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (4) of Section 48 r/w. sub section (1) of section 40 of the Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal sciences University Act 1989 (Tamil Nadu act 42 of 1989), Regulations namely “The Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal sciences University Regulations” have been made. Regulation No.24(1) of the said Regulation, impugned in the Writ Petition, reads as follows:
“(1) The age of superannuation of employees who are recruited against permanent or temporary posts of the university, governed by the Policy of the UGC and borne by the UGC scales of pay and the employees who a
