Dr. A.Sree Rama Murthy vs Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad and others

Heard Sri Nooty Rama Mohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Siva Reddy, learned standing Counsel for the University.

The petitioner presently serving on the teaching staff of Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University as senior Scientist (Professor Cadre). Under the prevailing regulations governing his service, he has to be retired from service on the afternoon of 31-3-1999 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be retained in service of the 1st respondent-University, till he attains the age of superannuation of 62 years duly paying for his services and for consequential direction to the respondents to refrain from retiring the petitioner on 31-3-1999 and pass such other further order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

This relief is sought in the premise of the following facts :

The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, after the implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission in respect of Central Government employees, has placed a proposal recommending to raise the age of superannuation from present 60 years to 62 years among other recommendations and those recommendations are pending before the State Government for consideration and decision; if there is any delay on the part of the State Government in taking decision to implement the recommendations made by the Ministry of Unman Resources Development, the petitioner would be retired on 31-3-1999 and that would result in an irreparable prejudice to the petitioner. On this factual matrix, the above noted relief is sought by the petitioner.

Certain overriding considerations/ principles governing the scope of judicial review under Article 226 impel me to dismiss the writ petition. They are:

Firstly, Article 226 is essentially meant to enforce established rights, and not to establish rights, and certainly not to enforce a mirage - right in contemplation or wishful thinking of acquisition of such right at a future date. It is not that the recommendation made by the Ministry of Human Resources Development is final and it obligates the Universities and the State Governments to implement those recommendations without leaving any discretion to them. Whether the recommendation made by the Ministry of Human Resources Development should be accepted and implemented or not is very much within the domain of discretion vested in the State Governments, I say this, because, in order to implement the recommendations, the State Government has to share the fiscal burden to an extent of 20%. The Government may also take into account the expediency and impact of the implementation of the recommendations keeping in view the overall situation obtaining in the employment market of the unemployed youths. The Government has to take a responsible policy decision. Therefore, it cannot be said that what the Government has to do on recommendations of the Ministry of Human Resources Development is a mere ministerial formality, and, therefore, the raising of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years is a certainty. Alternatively, it may be noted that even assuming that it is certain that the Government will raise the age of superannuation to 62 year by its decision in future, that future action of the Government does not vest any enforceable right in the petitioner to seek writ of mandamus today.

Secondly, recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission or the recommendations made by the Ministry of Human Resources Development are only recommendatory and they are not binding on the State Governments as a matter of course or as a matter of law. The Government in its discretion and for valid reasons including fiscal and other relevant considerations may take a decision not to implement the recommendations.

Thirdly, it is needless to state that the age of superannuation is an essential term and condition of any service. If the Court were to entertain the writ petition and issue ''mandamus'' to the Agricultural University to continue the service of the petitioner and the similarly circumstanced teachers even beyond 60 years of age and til they attain the age of 62 years, in my considered opinion, that action of the Court would tantamount to legislating (rule-making), modifying the statutory regulations, and such a course of action is impermissible for the Court. The validity of the statutory rule that fixes the age of superannuation at 60 years is not assailed in the writ petition.

Therefore, I do not find any substantive ground for the Court, at this stage, to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner has utterly failed to demonstrate or establish his existing right to seek writ of mandamus to the respondent-University or the Government to continue his services beyond the age of superannuation prescribed under the statutory service regulations. The petitioner does not have a right to continue in service beyond 31-3-1999 unless, in the meanwhile, the Government raises the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.