http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: T.P. GEORGE AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/03/1992

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. (CJ) BENCH: KANIA, M.H. (CJ) MOHAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1992 SCR  (2) 311        1992 SCC  Supl.  (3) 191  JT 1992 (3)    88        1992 SCALE  (1)889

ACT:      Civil Services      University Grants Commission Scheme, 1986-Clause 26-Age of   superannuation  of   teachers-Implementation   of-State Government  deciding  to  implement  the  Scheme,  but   not accepting  higher  superannuation age  of  60  years-Whether teachers  entitled  to superannuate on attaining  60  years- Different  conditions of service and superannuation age  for teachers  of universities and private  affiliated  colleges- Whether  discriminatory-Retirement  age  of  55  years   for affiliated  college  teachers too low-Experience  gained  by teachers  after several years of teaching-Not to be lost  by early  retirement  age-Consideration  and  determination  of correct age by State Government-Need for.

HEADNOTE:      Clause 26 of the University Grants Commission Scheme of 1986   framed   by   the   Government,   pursuant   to   the recommendations of the Malhotra Committee, provided that the age of superannuation for teachers should be 60 years.   The Scheme also contemplated certain improvement in the revision of  pay scales and provision of assistance in  that  behalf. While the Government of Kerala decided to adopt a major part of  the Scheme, including the revision of scales of  pay  it did  not  accept  the  recommendation  as  to  the  age   of superannuation.    This  was  challenged  by  the   affected teachers  before  the High Court, contending that  once  the State  Government  had  accepted  the  Scheme,  which   also provided for higher age of 60 years for superannuation,  all the  clauses of the Scheme became applicable and  they  were entitled  to superannuate at the age of 60 years.   However, this  plea  was  rejected by the  High  Court.   Hence,  the appeal,  by  special leave, before this  Court.   Some  Writ Petitions were also filed before this Court, by the affected teachers.      Disposing of the cases this Court,      HELD : 1.1 The High Court was right in holding that the UGC  Scheme  did  not  become  applicable  because  of   any statutory mandate                                                        312 making it obligatory for the Government and the Universities to follow the same, and, therefore, the State Government had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

the  discretion either to accept or not accept  the  Scheme, And in its discretion, it had decided to accept the  Scheme, subject to the one condition, that, in so far as the age  of superannuation  was  concerned, they would  not  accept  the fixation  of higher age provided in the Scheme; and that  as long  as  the  age of superannuation remained  fixed  at  55 years, and as long as the State Government had not  accepted the UGC’s recommendation to fix at 60 years, teachers  could not  claim as a matter of right that they were  entitled  to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. [313B, F-G, 314D]      1.2. It is clear from paragraph 4 of the circular dated 17th June, 1987 of the Government of India addressed to  all States/UTs  (Union  Territories) that the  adoption  of  the Scheme was voluntary, and the only result which might follow from  the State Government not adopting the scheme might  be that   it  may  not  get  the  benefit  of  the   offer   of reimbursement  from the Government to the extent of  80  per cent of the additional expenditure involved in giving effect to the revision of pay scales as recommended by the  Scheme. [314 E-G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1680- 87 and 1672-78 of 1992.      From  the Judgments and Orders dated 22.3.91,  13.3.91, 11.3.91,   12.3.91,  27.3.91,  14.3.91,  13.3.91,   18.3.91, 3.4.91,  19.6.91, 26.3.91, 25.3.91, 12.4.91 and  23.7.91  of the Kerala High Court in Original Petition No.  3291/1991-P, Writ  Appeal  Nos. 236/91, 223/91, 230/91,  306/91,  239/91, 234/91,  O.P.NO. 2939/91, W.A.No.319/91 O.A.Nos.  6027/91-P, 3141/90-Y, 3335/91-V, W.A.Nos. 415, 420 and 639 of 1991.                          AND      Writ Petition (C) Nos. 38/92, 1098/91 & 215/92.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      K.K.   Venugopal,  G.Viswanatha   Iyer,   V.Jayaprasad, T.G.Narayanan  Nair,  R.F.Nariman and E.M.S.  Anam  for  the Appellants/Petitioners.      P.S.  Poti,  T.T. Kunhi Kannan,  Govind  K.  Bharathan, Sudhir   Gopi,  A.G.  Prasad  and  M.M.  Kashyap   for   the Respondents.                                                        313 The following order of the Court was delivered : Special leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.      We  are  in  agreement with  the  observations  of  the Division  Bench of Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No.  223 of 1991 quoted in the impugned judgment which run as follow:           "Though clause 26 of the Scheme provides that  the          age  of  superannuation for teachers should  be  60          years,   and   the  scheme   contemplates   certain          improvement  in  the  revision  of  pay-scales  and          providing for assistance in that behalf, it is  not          a scheme which is statutorily binding either on the          State  Government  or  the  different  Universities          functioning under the relevant statues in the State          of  Kerala. What the State Government has  done  by          its  order date 13-3-1990 is to implement  the  UGC          Scheme  including  revision  of scales  of  pay  in          relation  to  teachers  in  universities  including          Kerala    Agricultural    University,    affiliated          colleges,  Law Colleges, Engineering  Colleges  and          Qualified   Librarians   and   qualified   physical          Education  Teachers  with  effect  from   1.1.1986,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

        subject however to the express condition that in so          far  as  the age of retirement  is  concerned,  the          present  fixation of 55 years shall  continue.  The          contention  of  the  appellant is  that  the  State          Government  having accepted the UGC Scheme, and  as          the  scheme provides for a higher age of 60  years,          once the State Government accepted the Scheme,  all          the clauses of the Scheme became applicable. It  is          not possible to accede to this contention. Firstly,          as  already stated the UGC Scheme does  not  become          applicable because of any statutory mandate  making          it   obligatory   for  the   Government   and   the          Universities  to  follow the  same.  Therefore  the          State  Government  had  the  discretion  either  to          accept  or  not  to  accept  the  scheme.  In   its          discretion  it  has decided to accept  the  Scheme,          subject  to the one condition, namely in so far  as          the  age of superannuation is concerned, they  will          not  accept the fixation of higher age provided  in          the  Scheme.  The  State  Government  having   thus          accepted  the  Scheme  in the  modified  form,  the          teachers can only get the benefit which flows  from          the Scheme                                                        314           to the extent to which it has been accepted by the          State  Government and the  concerned  Universities.          The  appellant cannot claim that major  portion  of          the Scheme having been accepted by the  government,          they  have  no  right  not  to  accept  the  clause          relating    to   fixation   of   higher   age    of          superannuation.  That is a matter between the State          Government  on  the  one hand  and  the  University          Grants Commission on the other, which was  provided          certain  benefits  by  the Scheme. It  is  for  the          University Grants Commission to extend the  benefit          of  the Scheme or not to extend the benefit of  the          Scheme,  depending upon its satisfaction about  the          attitude  taken  by  the State  Government  in  the          matter of implementing the same.  That is a  matter          entirely  between the State Government on  the  one          hand  and the University Grants Commission  on  the          other.    Teachers  of  the   private   institution          concerned are governed by the Statutes framed under          the  relevant statutory enactment.  As long as  the          superannuation  remains  fixed at 55 years  and  as          long  as the State Government has not accepted  the          UGC’s   recommendation   to   fix   the   age    of          superannuation  at 60 years, teachers cannot  claim          as  a  matter of right that they  are  entitled  to          retire on attaining the age of 60 years."      We  may clarify the scheme referred to UGC  (University Grants  commission) Scheme of 1986 framed by the  Government pursuant to the Malhotra committee’s Report. We may  further point out that it is clear from paragraph 4 of the  circular dated  17th June, 1987, addressed by the Ministry  of  Human Resources  Development,  department  of  Education,  to  the Education  Secretary of all States/UTs  (Union  territories) that the adoption of the scheme was voluntary, and the  only result  which  might follow from the  State  Government  not adopting the scheme might be that it may not get the benefit of  the  offer of reimbursement from the Government  to  the extent of 80 per cent of the additional expenditure involved in   giving  effect  to  the  revision  of  pay  scales   as recommended by the Scheme.      We   may  further  point  out  that  the  teachers   in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Universities  are governed in respect of their condition  of service  and the age of retirement by the  separate  statues made  by the Universities concerned. On the other  hand  the teachers  in  private colleges or  affiliated  colleges  are governed  in  respect  of their  conditions  of  service  by regulations or rules framed by the                                                        315 Government   (separate   set   of   statutes).    In   these circumstances, the two classes of Universities teachers  and teachers  in private colleges cannot be regarded as  similar for  purposes of conditions of service as to bring the  case under Article 14 of the Constitution.      Although  the  appeals and the writ petitions,  in  our view,  cannot  succeed, we do feel that  age  of  retirement fixed  at  55 years in the case of  teachers  of  affiliated colleges  is too low.  It is only after a  teacher  acquires several years of teaching experience that he really  becomes adept at his job and it is unfortunate if the students  have to lose the benefit of his experience by reason of an unduly early  age of retirement.  However, it is not for the  court to  prescribe  the correct age of retirement but that  is  a policy  function requiring considerable expertise which  can properly  be  done  by the State  Government  or  the  State Legislature or the Universities concerned. We hope that some time  in near future, the State Government will be  able  to consider the question and determine the age of retirement as it best thinks fit. N.P.V.                    Appeals and petitions disposed of.                                                        316