Allahabad High Court
Raja Ram Verma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)AWC2459, [2002(94)FLR1121]
Author: D.R. Chaudhary
Bench: D.R. Chaudhary
JUDGMENT S.R. Singh, J.
1. The petitioner who was appointed Assistant Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (in short the Institute) on 11.11.1983, has questioned the legality of his superannuation at the age of 60 years w.e.f. 31.12.2000 vide impugned order dated July 17, 2000 (copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-11). A perusal of the impugned order would show that the employees including the petitioner, referred to therein, were informed that they would be retiring from the services of the Institute on the dates noted against their names in column 7 as per decision of the Board of Governors in its meeting held on 22.5.2000. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Assistant Registrar (Admin. Section) of the Institute.
2. Statute 13 (2) of the Indian Institute of Technology Statute, framed under the Institute of Technology Act, 1961, prescribes the age of superannuation of a confirmed appointee. It reads as under :
"13 (2) Subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes, all appointments to posts under the Institute shall ordinarily be made on probation for a period of one year after which period the appointee, if confirmed shall continue to hold his office subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes, till the end of the month in which he attains the age of 6O years :
Provided that where the Board considered that in the interests of students and for the purposes of teaching and guiding the research scholars any member of the academic staff should be re-employed, it may re-employ such a member till the end of the semester or the academic session as may be considered appropriate in the circumstances of each case :
Provided further that where it becomes necessary to re-employ any such member beyond the end of the semester or academic session as the case may be, the Board may with the pervious approval of the visitor, re-employ any such member for a period upto three years in the first instance and upto two years thereafter and in no case exceeding the end of the academic session in which he attains the age of 65 years :
Provided also that in no circumstances, such member shall be re-employed for any purposes other than those of teaching and guiding the research scholars."
3. It would be evident from the provision aforestated that the right of a confirmed employee of Institute to continue in service 'till the end of the month In which he attains the age of 60 years', is 'subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes'. Petitioner claims entitlement to continue in service till he attains the age of 62 years on the basis of the decision contained in letter dated 27.7.1998 Issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development addressed to the Secretary, University Grants Commission with copies forwarded to the Vice Chancellors of all Central Universities ; Member Secretary, A.I.C.T.E. and Secretary, Indian Council for Agricultural Research. New Delhi, providing therein that the age of superannuation of University and college teachers would be 62 years with liberty reserved to the Universities or colleges to re-employ superannuated teachers upto 65 years within the existing guidelines framed by the U.G.C. and subsequent letter dated 31.8.1998 of the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development addressed to the Director, Indian Institute of Technology with regard to increase in age of superannuation of academic stock including personnel of Registry, Library and Physical Education. A copy of the letter dated 31.8.1998 has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner has placed reliance also on clarificatory letter dated November 6, 1998 issued by the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India in continuation of earlier letter dated 27.7.1998 providing therein that the provisions indicated in para 1 (vi) of the letter dated 27.7.1998 shall also be applicable to Registrar, Librarian, Physical Education personnel, Controllers of Examination, Finance Officers, etc. Another letter dated 24.3.1999 was issued by the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India addressed to the Secretary, University Grants Commission removing doubts raised from certain quarters as to whether benefit of enhancement in the age of superannuation be allowed in the case of Readers, Professors is available to non-teaching employees with comparable designation such as System Analyst, Scientific Officer, Engineering etc. The answer as per letter is as under :
"The benefit of enhancement in the age of retirement is available only to Teachers and Registrars/Librarians Physical Education, Personnel/Controllers of Examinations/Finance Officers only. In the case of other non-teaching employees the age of retirement will be 60."
4. Yet another letter dated 30.3.1999 issued by the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India specifically in relation to I.I.Ts., I.I.Ms. and I.I.Sc. pursuant to its earlier decision contained in the Ministry's letter dated 27.7.1998 visualizing that the age of superannuation of 62 years indicated in para 1 (vi) of the Ministry's letter dated 27.7.1998 would also be applicable to Registrars, Librarians, Physical Education, Personnel Controllers of Examinations, Finance Officers and such other University employees who are being treated at par with the teachers and whose age of superannuation was 60 years. It would appear that pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, the I.I.T., Kanpur took a policy decision that retirement of the incumbents will be 60 years or 62 years depending on whether the date of superannuation under the service rules at the time of appointment was 58 years or it was 60 years. A letter dated 24.6.1999, containing the said policy decision has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. By means of the said letter the Chairman, Board of Governors was requested or approve the proposal contained in the letter. The said proposal. It is stated in the writ petition, was duly approved by the Chairman, Board of Governors I.I.T., Kanpur.
5. Sri R.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, a personal of Registry, was entitled to continue up to the age of 62 years in view of the above policy decisions taken by the Board of Governors pursuant to the various decisions of the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that the Directors of the Indian Institutes of the country in their meeting held on 3.5.1999 took a policy decision that the age of superannuation of those officers who were to be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years would be 60 years and that of the officers whose age of retirement was initially 60 years under the service rules would now be 62 years. Sri R.N. Singh has also submitted that Sri S.H. Bakre and Sri S.K. Gupta have been extended the benefit of the above decisions in relation to the age of superannuation, while the petitioner, a similarly circumstanced personnel of the registry, has been denied the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation. Sri S.N. Verma, senior advocate appearing for the Institute contended that the Statute 13.2 prescribing the age of superannuation having not been amended, the petitioner cannot claim entitlement to continue in service upto the age of 62 years merely on the strength of the Government orders or the policy decision taken by the Board of Governors. The first Statutes, submitted Sri Verma, have been framed by the council with the previous approval of the visitor and any addition to the Statute or any amendment or repeal of the Statute by the Board requires 'previous approval of the visitor' as provided in Section 27(3) of the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 and as provided by Section 27(4) of the Act, a new Statute amending the existing Statutes has no validity unless, it has been assented to by the visitor. Sri Verma placed reliance on clarificatory letter F. No. 23-8/98-T.S.-I (Government of India) Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary 'and Higher Education, Technical Science-1, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi dated February 16, 2000.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made across the Bar. The terms and conditions of service of permanent employees are laid down in Statute 13 extracted hereinbefore. Clause (2) of Statute 13 provides that an appointee to a post under the Statute if confirmed, "shall continue to hold his office subject to the provisions of the Act and Statutes, till the end of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years." This is applicable to both teaching and non-teaching employees of the Institute. Right of a confirmed employee of the Institute to continue in office 'till the end of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years is subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statute.' Attention of the Court was not invited to any provision in the Act or the Statute forbidding the Board of Governors from taking a policy decision pursuant to any direction given by the Ministry of Human Resource, Government of India to allow the employees of the Institute to continue till the age of 62 years. In other words, nothing in the Act or the Statute prohibits enhancement of age of superannuation of employees of the Institute pursuant to a policy decision. Such policy decision, if uniformly applied , would not be violative of Statute 13 (2) of the Statutes. In fact the Institute has done so in the case of the teachers and certain members of the Registry--for example Sri S.H. Bakre and Sri S.K. Gupta. On the contrary, selective implementation of a policy decision would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is true that the petitioner cannot claim as of right, any extension in the prescribed age of superannuation but the Institute having taken policy decision keeping in view the directions issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India cannot be permitted to apply the said policy in a selective manner depending upon the whims of those who matter.
7. The Government orders referred to hereinabove had the force of law by virtue of Article 73 of the Constitution of India. In para 4 of the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Sanjay Bhatnagar, Assistant Registrar (Legal and Confidential) in the Institute, it has been clarified that the I.I.T., Kanpur is a body corporate established under the provisions of the Act and "the decision of the Government of India do not ipso facto apply to the institute" unless and until they are adopted by the Board of Governors of the Institute in accordance with the provisions of the Act in relation to the Institute. As stated hereinabove the Government decisions were approved by the Board of Governors and, therefore, even according to what is stated in para 4 of the counter-affidavit, the Government decision apply to the Institute inasmuch as nothing in the Act precludes the Board of Governors to take policy decision to enhance the age of retirement of the employees of the Institute, I.I.T., Kanpur, though is an autonomous body is under the administrative control of the Ministry of Human Resource Development as stated in para 22 of the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Sanjay Bhatnagar on behalf of the Institute. The policy decision taken by the Board does not appear to have been reversed in the light of clarificatory letter dated 16,2.2000 issued by the Government of India, reliance on which was placed by Sri S.N. Verma during the course of arguments. In the fact situation of the case, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order superannuating the petitioner w.e.f. 31.12.2000 is quashed. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service till he attains the age of 62 years and grant him all consequential benefits. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.