IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN AND G. ARUL MURUGAN, JJ.
R.R.Lakshmi - Appellant
Versus
The Headmaster, The Chennai Port & Dock Educational - Respondent
W.A.No. 1657 of 2024
Decided on : 23-04-2025
(A) Government Orders - G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 07.05.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 25.02.2021 - Age of retirement - Appellant, a Secondary Grade Teacher, superannuated at 58, claimed entitlement to extended retirement age under Government Orders - Respondents contended these Orders apply only to Government servants, not private school employees - Writ Court dismissed the petition. (Paras 2-4, 8-10)
(B) Employment Contract - The court held that private institutions are governed by their own regulations and not by Government Orders, emphasizing that employment contracts cannot be altered by external parties. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was superannuated on 31.05.2021 at age 58, after the issuance of Government Orders increasing retirement age, but was employed at a private school.
Findings of Court:
The appellant was rightly superannuated as the age of retirement was 58 according to the institution's regulations at the time.
Issues: Whether the Government Orders apply to private school employees and the validity of the appellant's superannuation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Government Orders do not extend to private institutions, and employment contracts govern retirement age.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Writ Court dated 28.03.2024 in WP No.13565 of 2022, the appellant has preferred this Appeal.
2. The said Writ Petition was filed by the appellant seeking to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 22.07.2021 informing the appellant that she is superannuated from the services of the first respondent School with effect from 31.05.2021 and for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to reinstate the appellant forthwith as per G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 07.05.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 25.02.2021 which enhanced the age of retirement of Government Servants from 58 to 60.
3. The appellant who was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the first respondent School attained the age of 58 was thus superannuated under the impugned communication dated 22.07.2021 with effect from 31.05.2021. It is the contention of the appellant that she would be entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 07.05.2020 wherein the Government increased the age of retirement of Government employees from 58 to 59 and G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 25.02.2021 under which the age of retirement was increased to 60. Since the appellant attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2021 after the issuance of both the Government Orders viz. G.O.Ms. Nos. 51 and 29, according to the appellant, she should be extended the benefits under the said Government Orders and should be treated to have worked till she completed the age of 60.
4. The claim of the appellant was resisted by the respondents contending that the Government Orders would apply only to Government servants and not to the appellant, who is an employee of a Private School. It was also the contention of the respondents that it is the contract of employment between the parties that would govern the situation and the Government Orders passed, increasing the age of retirement, would not be applicable to the appellant, who was in private employment. The Writ Court concurred with the contentions of the respondents and dismissed the Writ Petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Government Orders are made specifically applicable to Aided Educational Institutions and employees of all constitutional statutory bodies, Public Sector Undertaking including all State Corporations, Local Bodies, Boards, Commissions, Societies etc. and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the first respondent being a recognized School though it is private would be bound by the Government Orders and hence the action of the first respondent in retiring the appellant on 31.05.2021 is against the Government Orders.
6. Contending contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent is a private unaided school and as such the Government Orders relied upon by the appellant would not apply to it. It is under no obligation to increase the age of retirement on the basis of what has been done by the Government. The learned counsel would also point out that, however, taking queue from the Government Orders, the Managing Committee of the first respondent had decided to increase the age of retirement from 58 to 60 with effect from 31.03.2022. He would also point out that the circular issued by the first respondent on 28.03.2022 makes it clear that the increase in age will apply to those who are in regular service as on date under due to retire by superannuation from 31.03.2022 onwards. The increase being prospective in nature cannot be applied to the appellant.
7. We have considered the rival submissions.
8. The Government had increased the age of retirement by way of the two Government orders referred to supra from 58 to 60. The Government Order makes it clear that it will apply to all teaching and non-teaching staff working in Aided Educational Institutions, and Employees of all constitutional/statutory bodies, Public Sector Undertaking, including all Corporat
Government Orders increasing retirement age do not apply to private school employees, as employment contracts govern such matters.
The State has the discretion to frame its own laws relating to education and is not bound to accept or follow UGC regulations.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, which enhanced the age of superannuation of Government Employees from 60 years to 62 years, t....
The Court held that the enhancement of age of superannuation to 62 years is a policy decision of the State Government and does not automatically apply to employees governed by independent Bye-laws.
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 fixed age of retirement established at the time of employment cannot be altered to the detriment of employees, and any amendments must operate prospectively.
Fixed age of retirement established at the time of appointment cannot be altered to the detriment of employees, and any amendments operate prospectively.
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.