1

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4625-4626 OF 2005

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

M.S. BIDARKUNDI AND ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

The respondents joined the services of the appellant–Indian institute of

Technology  (‘the  Institute’,  for  short)  as  Junior/Senior  Research  Assistants

(Academic  Cadre),  Junior/Senior  Technical  Assistants  (Technical  Cadre)  and

Research  Scholars.  As  they  were  stagnating  for  long  without  promotional

opportunities, the Institute promoted them to supernumerary posts of Laboratory

Superintendents with pay scales equivalent to that of Lecturers. As the Laboratory

Superintendents were not extended the benefits  that were extended to academic

staff, the respondents filed WP No.1757 of 1988 seeking a direction to the Institute

to classify them as academic staff.  

2. During the pendency of the said petition, the age of superannuation of

employees of the Institute which was originally 60 years, was increased as 62 years

2

in  respect  of  academic  staff  (scientific  design  staff  and  others),   personnel  of

Registry (Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar), Library (Librarian,

Deputy Librarian, Assistant Librarian) and Physical Education (Group ‘A’) who

were on the roll  of  the Institute  as  on  31.8.1998,  vide Resolution of  Board of

Governors dated  15.6.1999,  pursuant to  Government of  India’s  directive dated

31.8.1998. As the Laboratory Superintendents were not being categorized either as

academic staff or as personnel of Registry, Library or Physical Education, they were

not extended the benefit of the increased age of superannuation. Therefore, they

filed  another Writ Petition No.922  of  2000,  seeking a declaration that they are

entitled to the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation (62 years) as per the

Government of  India’s  directive  dated  31.8.1998  and  subsequent  clarifications.

Alternatively, they sought quashing of the said directive dated 31.8.1998 and the

consequential  resolution  of  the  Institute  dated  15.6.1999,  if  they  were  to  be

construed as ignoring the Laboratory Superintendents as a class from coverage.  

3. The High Court disposed of the said two writ petitions by a common

order dated 7.7.2004. It held that on account of passage of time, the issues raised in

WP No.1757 of 1988 had become academic and consequently disposed of the said

writ petition, as no relief was required to be granted to the writ petitioners in that

petition.  In  so  far as  WP No.922  of  2000,  the  High  Court  declared  that  the

respondents are eligible for the increased age of superannuation of 62 years as per

the Government of India’s directive dated 31.8.1998 and subsequent clarifications.

The High Court also issued a direction to the Institute to implement the said GOI

directive dated 31.8.1998 and its clarifications and apply to the respondents,  the

3

increased age of superannuation of 62 years. A further direction was issued to the

Government of  India to  release necessary grants  to  the  Institute  to  enable  the

Institute  to  pay  the  arrears  of  salary and  other  consequential  benefits  to  the

respondents herein within four months. A direction was issued to the Institute to

pay the respondents, on release of grant by the Government of India, within four

weeks of  such release.  The Court further directed that if  the  respondents  were

entitled to be reinstated as a consequence the Institute should either reinstate them

or give the monetary benefits upto the age of superannuation.  

4. The said order of  the High Court is  challenged by the Institute.  The

Institute  contends  that  classification  of  posts  is  the  function  of  the  Board  of

Governors of the Institute under Statute 11 of the Institute with reference to the

functions or duties discharged by the holders of such posts, and the court could not

have  taken  over  the  said  function  and  classify  the  posts  of  Laboratory

Superintendents or any other posts as academic or otherwise. It is also submitted

that while extending a benefit, it is not necessary to extend the benefit to all the

employees at the same point of time and it is possible for the employer to make

dissimilar provision with regard to different groups of employees and that would

not amount to discrimination. Reliance is placed on decisions of this Court in Ajoy

Kumar  Banerjee  vs.  Union of India & Ors – 1984 (3) SCC 127, and IIT, Kanpur

vs. Umesh Chandra – 2006 (5) SCC 664.

5. We have considered the rival submissions. It is clear from the decision in

Umesh Chandra (supra) that classification of posts is the function of the Board of

4

Governors. If the Statute requires  classification and Board of Governors fails to

discharge that function, the appropriate course for the court is to direct the Board

of Governors to discharge its duty and not take upon itself the said function.  

6. Statute 11 requires that all employees of the Institute, except those paid

from contingencies, shall have to be classified into three groups : (a) academic staff,

(b) technical  staff, (c) administrative and other staff. Statute 11 also enumerates the

several posts  which fall  under the  said  three categories.  The  said  statute  also

contemplates the Board classifying any other posts as either academic, technical or

administrative posts,  by appropriate resolution. In these cases, the posts in which

the respondents were earlier employed fell either under the category of academic

staff (that is, the posts of Junior/Senior Research Assistants and Research Scholars)

or under technical staff (that is, the posts of Junior/Senior Technical Assistants). All

the  respondents  were  promoted  as  Laboratory  Superintendents  which  were

supernumerary posts  and  not  cadre  posts,  purely as  a  measure of  relief  from

stagnation.  The  Board  has  not  chosen  to  classify  the  posts  of  Laboratory

Superintendents  as  either academic,  technical or administrative,  as  required by

Statute No.11, as they are supernumerary posts. In the absence of classification of

Laboratory Superintendents by the Institute under any of the specified categories,

and as  the said  posts  are considered as  supernumerary posts,  the classification

which applied to them prior to their promotion will continue to apply to them. That

is, those respondents who were earlier holding the posts of Junior/Senior Research

Assistants,  and Research Scholars will be continued to be classified as academic

staff  and  those  who  were  earlier holding  the  posts  of  Junior/Senior  Technical

5

Assistants will be continued to be classified as technical staff,  until the Board of

Governors  of  the  Institute  assigns  a  classification  to  the  post  of  Laboratory

Superintendent.  We are therefore of  the view that until  the post  of  Laboratory

Superintendent is  classified,  the respondents  should be  treated as continuing to

belong  to  the  category  to  which  they  belonged  before  promotion  to  the

supernumerary post of Laboratory Superintendent. We are also of the view, to avoid

confusion and uncertainty, the Board of Governors of the Institute should classify

the  post  of  Laboratory Superintendent  under Statute  No.11,  by  taking note  of

relevant factors including the duties discharged by them.  

7. We therefore allow these appeals and issue the following directions in

place of the directions issued by the High Court :  

(a) Such  of  those  respondents,  who  were  academic  staff  before  their

promotion  as  Laboratory  Superintendents  shall  be  considered  as

academic staff for the purpose of extension of benefit of enhanced age of

superannuation;  

(b) Such  of  those  respondents  who  were  technical  staff  before  their

promotion  as  Laboratory  Superintendents  will  be  continued  to  be

considered as technical staff for the purpose of considering whether they

are entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation.  

(c) The respondents shall extend reliefs consequent to such classification, to

the appellants found eligible within three months.

(d) The  Board  of  Governors  of  the  Institute  shall  classify  the  post  of

Laboratory Superintendent under Statute 11 within four months from

6

today.  While  doing  so,  they may consider the  representations  of  the

respondents, for appropriate classification.  

(e) Parties to bear their respective costs.

  .........................J.    ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    .........................J. July 02, 2008.              ( P. SATHASIVAM )