AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard Shri Vivek Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh appears for the Agra College, Agra.
The petitioner no. 1 is an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry, and petitioner no. 2 is an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Mathematics, Agra College, Agra. They will be attaining the age of 62 years on 18.1.2012 and 15.1.2012 respectively.
It is submitted that on the recommendations of the University Grants Commission (UGC) in pursuance to the Chaddha Committee''s report the age of retirement of University teachers was increased to 65 years. The recommendation of the UGC for increasing the age of superannuation was made taking into account the shortage of teachers and to maintain uniformity in the conditions of service in the University and colleges in the country.
This question came up for consideration before this Court in Indra Deo Dwivedi Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition No. 51 (S/B) of 2010, which was dismissed on 22.1.2010. The Court held that enhancement of age of retirement falls exclusively within the domain and policy making power of the State Government. It has a cascading effect on the cadre of service and financial implications. The enhancement of age of retirement also affects the policy of appointments, promotions and has to be implemented after taking a conscious consideration of all the aspects relating to the employment in the Universities and the Colleges affiliated to the Universities. Such a decision cannot be enforced by a writ of mandamus only on the ground of recommendations of the UGC. The Court would not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision of the State Government taken, after entering into consultation with the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India and after seeking its opinion by letter dated 31.12.2008. The judgment in Indra Deo Dwivedi (Supra) has been followed in many writ petitions including Writ Petition No. 36285 of 2010 (Dr. Rajnath Upadhyay and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 22.6.2010.
The State Government has not accepted the recommendations of increasing the retirement age, and to amend the statutes of the State Universities.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that SLP (Civil) No.__ of 2011, CC No. 10784 of 2011, Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. challenging the judgment in Writ Petition No. 36285 of 2010 dated 22.6.2010 in which this Court had followed the judgment in Indra Deo Dwivedi, came up before the Supreme Court in which after allowing the exemption and issuing notices, the Supreme Court by order dated 22.6.2010 has directed status quo to be maintained in the meanwhile.
It is further submitted that this court has in similar matters following the orders of the Supreme Court directed status quo to be maintained in all the cases.
The State Government by a Government Order dated 25th August, 2011 addressed to all the Registrars of the Universities in the State of U.P., circulated the interim order of status quo in SLP (Civil) No. 16543 of 2011, and its decision taken after seeking legal opinion that the order of status quo does not change the legal position in respect of the age of retirement as decided by the State Government, and considered by the High Court, and that in the circumstances the retirement age of the University teachers should be accepted at 62 years.
We are informed that a contempt petition has been filed in which notices have been issued in the Supreme Court.
So far as the High Court is concerned, the judgment in Indra Deo Dwivedi''s case (Supra) has neither been stayed nor any order has been passed either by the State government or by the Supreme Court to allow the University teachers giving them benefit to increased retirement age.
We have already considered in Indra Deo Dwivedi''s case, that the enhancement of the age of retirement, is matter of policy of the State Government. The recommendations of the University Grants Commission, at the time of recommending the increase in the pay structure is not binding upon the State Government. The decision with regard to age of retirement has a cascading effect on the cadre of service and has financial implications to be considered by the State Government before its implementation and until then the age of retirement provided in the service conditions will continue to operate.
We do not find any good ground that there is any change in the fact situation or legal position, since the decision was taken by this Court in Indra Deo Dwivedi''s case.
The writ petition is dismissed.