Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.D. Agarwal, B. Dikshit, JJ.
Dr. V.K. Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Writ No's. 9919, 12222, 20019, 21015, 29670, 31664 and 33277 of 1990 and Writ No's. 10999, 13181, 15440, 15534 and 2027 of 1991
Decided On : 24-02-1992
RETIREMENT AGE - MEDICAL COLLEGE TEACHERS - FUNDAMENTAL RULE 56 - DISCRIMINATORY - ARTICLE 14 - CLASSIFICATION - AGE OF ENTRY INTO SERVICE - PENSION - EXTENSION OF SERVICE - PUBLIC GROUNDS - AIR INDIA CASE - DELEGATION OF POWERS - UNCANALISED AND UNGUIDED DISCRETION - INVALID - FUNDAMENTAL RULE 56 (A) - CANALISED AND GUIDED DISCRETION - VALID - PRACTICE OF EXTENSION UP TO 60 YEARS - POLICY DECISION - UNIFORMITY IN STANDARD OF EDUCATION - MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA RECOMMENDATION - AGE OF RETIREMENT IN OTHER STATES - CONSIDERATION OF EXTENSION CASES - ALL INDIA JUDGES' ASSOCIATION CASE - PARI MATERIA - APPROPRIATE RULES - INTERIM RELIEF TILL MARCH 31, 1992 - APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION - DISPOSAL BY MARCH 31, 1992 - NO RECOVERY OF SALARY PAID.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, teachers of State Medical Colleges, challenged the age of superannuation of 58 years prescribed for them under Fundamental Rule 56, contending that it was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They argued that the teachers of State Medical Colleges constituted a separate class of government servants due to their unique qualifications and late age of entry into service, and hence should be treated differently from other government servants. They also pointed out that the age of superannuation for teachers of University-maintained Medical Colleges was 60 years, and that the petitioners were performing the same duties as those teachers.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Fundamental Rule 56 was not discriminatory and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It observed that the petitioners were government servants and were governed by the same rules and regulations as other government servants. The Court further held that the petitioners did not constitute a separate class of government servants, as they were not treated differently from other government servants in terms of their qualifications, pay, or other benefits. The Court also noted that the age of superannuation for teachers of University-maintained Medical Colleges was different because those colleges were governed by different rules and regulations.
Issues: 1. Whether Fundamental Rule 56, which prescribes the age of superannuation for government servants at 58 years, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioners, teachers of State Medical Colleges, constitute a separate class of government servants and should be treated differently from other government servants in terms of their age of superannuation? 3. Whether the age of superannuation for teachers of University-maintained Medical Colleges should be the same as that for teachers of State Medical Colleges?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Fundamental Rule 56 is not discriminatory and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It applies equally to all government servants, including teachers of State Medical Colleges. 2. The petitioners, teachers of State Medical Colleges, do not constitute a separate class of government servants and should not be treated differently from other government servants in terms of their age of superannuation. They are not treated differently from other government servants in terms of their qualifications, pay, or other benefits. 3. The age of superannuation for teachers of University-maintained Medical Colleges is different because those colleges are governed by different rules and regulations.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions. However, it directed the State Government to consider the petitioners' applications for extension of their age of superannuation beyond 58 years, and to dispose of such applications by March 31, 1992. The Court also directed that the petitioners be permitted to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years, if their applications for extension were allowed.
S.D. Agarwala, J.
In this petition and the group of petitions connected with the same, the question which arises is as to whether the Petitioners who are the teachers of the State Medical Colleges, their age of superannuation is 60 years or 58 years. The petition filed by Dr. V.K. Agarwal has been treated as the leading petition.
2. Dr. V. K. Agarwal is the Professor and Head of the Department of Pediatrics in the Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Medical College'). This Medical College is a Constituent College of the University of Allahabad. The Petitioner was born on 15th August, 1932. He passed the M 8 B.S. Examination from K. G. Medical College, Lucknow, in the year 1955. Thereafter, he obtained the Diploma of D.C.H in 1958 from London. In 1962, the Petitioner obtained M.R.C.P. from Edinburgh (U. K.) In the year 1963, the Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Medical College at Allahabad. In 1967, the Petitioner obtained the degree of M.D. and, thereafter, in February, 1973, the Petitioner was appointed as the Professor and the Head of the Department of Pediatrics in the Medical College, Allahabad.
3. In the petition, it has been alleged that the Petitioner is responsible for conducting a lot of research work and he is Consultant in many Organisations and he is contributing in a great deal in various Schemes of the Government of India and, consequently, the Petitioner received several awards for his services and research work in the field of child health in the year 1974. He was elected Member of Royal College of Physician, Edinburgh. In 1985, the Petitioner received Hari Om Ashram Research Fund Award. The Petitioner was also awarded Dr. R. S. Dayal Gold Medal for the best research paper in Neonetalogy.
4. In short, the case of the Petitioner is that he is governed by the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and since the age of retirement of the teachers of the University is 60 years the same principle should be applicable to the teachers of the Medical Colleges. They should also be made to retire at the age of 60 years and not at the age of 58 years.
5. The petition has been contested on behalf of the State Government. It has been averred in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that all the teachers in the Medical Colleges in the State are appointed in the same manner. These posts are gazetted posts and they fall within the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission. The medical teachers are appointed after consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission, as required by Article 320 of the Constitution of India. It has been further alleged that all the Lecturers, Readers and Professors in the Medical Colleges in the State are government servants Their services are at the disposal of the State Government all the 24 hours and that merely because they are engaged in the job of teaching medical education, they do not cease to be government servants The case set up in the counter affidavit, in fact, is that though the Medical College at Allahabad is a constituent College of the University of Allahabad. but in accordance with the Statutes of the University, which provide for the age of superannuation, the teachers of any college exclusively maintained by the State Government or the Local Authority have been excluded. It is consequently the case of the State Government that the teachers of the Medical Colleges are State Government Servants, as they are teachers of the Constituent Colleges exclusively maintained by the State Government and, consequently, the principles applicable to the teachers of the University are not applicable to the teachers of the Medical Colleges, which form a class in themselves.
6. At the time of hearing of the petition, the appointment letters of Dr. V.K. Agarwal were produced before us. It is clear from these appointment letters that Dr. V. K. Agarwal was appointed
AI
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
