IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
R.R. Lakshmi – Petitioner
Versus
The Headmaster, the Chennai Port & Dock Educational Trust's Higher Secondary School, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 13565 of 2022 & W.M.P.Nos.12771 & 12775 of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Favouritism and Nepotism - Superannuation Age - G.O.Ms.51 dt. 07.05.2020, G.O.Ms.29 dt. 25.02.2021 - The court discussed the applicability of government orders on the superannuation age to a private school and concluded that the orders were not applicable, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher in a private school, challenged her superannuation from service at the age of 58, claiming that the government orders enhancing the superannuation age to 60 should be applicable to her.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government orders enhancing the superannuation age were not applicable to the private school where the petitioner was employed, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: Applicability of government orders on superannuation age to private schools.
Ratio Decidendi: The government orders enhancing the superannuation age were found to be applicable only to government and aided educational institutions, not to private schools.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the superannuation from the service of the petitioner vide letter Ref.No.School/Misc/2021/S1 dated 22.07.2021 with effect from 31.05.2021 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner forthwith, for enabling the petitioner to get the attendant benefits, as per the G.Os viz., G.O.Ms.51 dt. 07.05.2020 and G.O.Ms.29 dt. 25.02.2021 (Personnel & Administration Reforms (S) Dept, concerned with the enhancement of the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years accordingly.)
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the first respondent thereby relieving the petitioner from service on retirement with effect from 31.05.2021.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is qualified with M.Sc., M.Ed., M.Phil degree and she was appointed as Teacher in the first respondent School run by the Madras Port and Dock Educational Trust. Though she was appointed as secondary grade teacher, she was exploited to the maximum level because of her higher qualification without any hike in her salary and other benefits. While she was about to cross 57 years in the month of May 2020, the Government passed order in G.O.Ms.No.51 Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 07.05.2020, thereby enhanced the age of retirement from 58 to 59 years.
3. Pursuant to the said government order, the petitioner and others teachers submitted representation collectively to the management seeking to enhance the age of retirement till 59. However, the said request was not considered by the management. The petitioner was subsequently relieved from her service as she had retired from service with effect from 31.05.2021 on the attainment of age of superannuation. Subsequently, the management of committee convened meeting on 23.03.2022 and resolved that the age of retirement has been enhanced from 58 to 60 with effect from 31.03.2022 onwards. Therefore, similarly placed teachers like the petitioner were permitted to work till their completion of 60 years.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action of the management is tinged with favouritism and nepotism. Further it is unjust, highly discriminatory and unconstitutional, violation of fundamental rights of the citizens, in terms of equality and equal opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution of India. She further submitted that though the government passed order in G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 07.05.2020, it was not considered by the management and abruptly terminated the service of the petitioner. The petitioner was deprived of her service benefit of extension of age of retirement as 60.
4.1. That apart, the government passed another order in G.O.(Ms)No.29 dated 25.02.2021, thereby extended the years of retirement from 59 years to 60 years. Though the petitioner submitted representation through E-mail dated 07.03.2022 to the third respondent seeking the benefits of extension of two years of service till the age of 60 years, so far it was not considered. But the similarly placed teachers were granted benefits under the government orders. Hence, the petitioner filed this present petition with the above said order.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
6. The petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 31.05.2021 by the first respondent, since she attained the age of superannuation. On perusal of G.O.Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administration Reforms (S) Department, dated 07.05.2020 revealed as follows:-
The applicability of government orders on superannuation age is limited to government and aided educational institutions, not private schools.
Government Orders increasing retirement age do not apply to private school employees, as employment contracts govern such matters.
Extension of service is a concession for the benefit of students and cannot be claimed as a right.
The definition of 'Teacher' under the Uttar Pradesh Act includes those recognized by the university, impacting superannuation benefits.
The court established that the definition of 'Teacher' under the Uttar Pradesh University Act includes the petitioner, entitling him to retirement benefits at 65 years.
Service Matter – Age of retirement – 1 - Every Government servant shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years:2- Government ....
The definition of 'Teacher' under the U.P. Act includes those recognized as such, entitling them to superannuation benefits.
The court emphasized that the applicability of government orders with retrospective effect and the re-appointment of superannuated individuals are within the executive domain and cannot be directed b....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.