Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

1. The issue that arises in the above Appeals is regarding the entitlement of Teachers working in private aided educational institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts in SLP (C) Nos. 31968-31969 of 2017. The Appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Commerce (later designated as Assistant Professor) on 01.09.1979 pursuant to the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of Statute No.28 (College Code 28) of the then Indore University (now Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalay, Indore) to PMB, Gujarati College, Indore which is an affiliated College. The said College was receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government.

8. Writ Appeal No.343 of 2016 filed by the Appellant was disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench. The Appellant filed a petition seeking review of the judgment of the Full Bench in Writ Appeal No. 950 of 2015 and the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.343 of 2016, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Appellant has approached this Court assailing the legality of the said judgments of the High Court.

9. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of the other cases as they are similar. Mr. L.C.Patne, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant in SLP (C) No.31968-31969 of 2017 submitted that the impugned judgments of the High Court are on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1973 Adhiniyam’). The powers conferred on the Coordination Committee under the 1973 Adhiniyam have not been properly appreciated by the High Court. He relied upon the Resolution dated 07.01.2004 of the Standing Committee to argue that the Teachers working in the private Colleges in aided posts have to be treated at par with their counterparts in the Government Colleges. The learned counsel found fault with the conclusion of the Full Bench of the High Court that the Resolution dated 07.01.2004 to enhance the age of superannuation of the Teachers working in the aided private Colleges was only a recommendation. He took us through the 1973 Adhiniyam to show that the Coordination Committee consists of the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor and the Rectors of the Universities and several Senior Officers of the Government. Referring to Section 34 of the 1973 Adhiniyam, the learned counsel submitted that the first Statutes and Ordinances were to be drawn up by the Coordination Committee. We were also shown Section 34 (4) of the 1973 Adhiniyam which deals with the powers and the functions of the Coordination Committee which includes the power to approve or reject the Statutes and Ordinances submitted by the Executive Council of the University. Apart from the other functions of the Coordination Committee, he placed reliance on Section 36 of the 1973 Adhiniyam to submit that the Coordination Committee can pass a Statute not only on the proposal of the Executive Council of the University but it can do so on its own motion. He further submitted that the recommendation of the Standing Committee on 01.04.2003 was to keep the age of superannuation of private Teachers and employees of private Colleges at par with their counterparts working in the Government Colleges which was approved by the Coordination Committee it its 72nd meeting held on 07.01.2004. He argued that the said decision of the Coordination Committee is binding on the Government as well in view of the representation of several Senior Officers of the Government in the Coordination Committee. In view of the amendment of the College Code 28, he submitted that private College Teachers working in aided posts have a right to continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation of 65 years, by being treated at par with the Teachers working in the Government Colleges.

13. Statute No.28 which is the College Code governs the service conditions of teaching staff. ‘College’ is defined in Clause I of the College Code which includes a College receiving grant from the State Government or Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog and Non-Grantee College not receiving any aid. The College Code shall apply to all Colleges admitted to the privileges of the University except the Colleges maintained or managed by the State Government or a Municipal Corporation or the University. Clause 26 of the College Code provides that a permanent Teacher shall be entitled to be in the service of the College until he/she completes the age of 60 years. The decision of the Coordination Committee dated 07.01.2004 was implemented by an amendment of the Clause 26 of Statute No.28 (College Code) which is as under:

18. We are not in agreement with the conclusion of the Full Bench of the High Court that the language of the Resolution dated 07.01.2004 is in the nature of a recommendation. It is clear from the facts narrated above that the matter pertaining to the age of superannuation of Teachers working in aided private Colleges was referred by the Coordination Committee to the Standing Committee.

On the basis of the recommendations of the Standing Committee, the Coordination Committee passed a Resolution on 07.01.2004 which was given effect to by an amendment to Clause 26 of the College Code. The second point answered by the Full Bench is that the UGC Regulations are not applicable to the State Government per se but are to be adopted by the State Government. The High Court was of the opinion that the Government had accepted the payment of revised pay scales only in respect of the Teachers working in the Government Institutes. The Standing Committee and the Coordination Committee of the University is represented by the Senior Officers of the State Government and it is not for the State Government to contend that they will not extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation till 65 years to the Teachers working in the private aided institutes in spite of the provisions in the College Code.