Yogeswara Panicker and Another vs Kerala State Institute For Languages

C.S. Rajan, J.—The Petitioners in these Original Petitions are employees of the Respondent, the Kerala State Institute for Languages. The Petitioners are working on the administrative side. Some of the Petitioners are working as Binders, Sweepers, etc., in the press under the management of the Respondent. As per Exhibit P-1 dated 7th October 1986 produced in O.P. No. 4550 of 1996 the Government allowed to enhance the age of retirement of the officers belonging to the Academic Branch of the Kerala State Institute for Languages to 58. The age of retirement on superannuation of the other employees was fixed as 55. The prayer in these Original Petitions is for a direction to the Respondent to raise the retirement age of the Petitioners to 58 as in the case of the academic staff. According to the Petitioner, the administrative staff and the academic staff of the institute have to be treated alike in the matter of their conditions of service. Treating the two sets of staff differently is discriminatory and violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

There is a further case for the Petitioners that the question of enhancement of the age of retirement of the staff has to be decided by the governing body of the Language Institute and not by the Government. The governing body has not taken a decision in this matter. Thus, it can be seen that the whole case of the Petitioner rests on the plea of discrimination among members of the staff of the Respondent-Institute.

A Counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent. The plea of discrimination has been answered in the counter affidavit as follows:

It is true that the retirement age of Academic Staff was enhanced to 58 years. The retirement age was enhanced only to treat the Academic Staff of the State Institute of Languages on a par with that of the University staff. The educational qualifications of the Academic staff are Post-graduate Degree (Minimum II Class) and proved efficiency in Malayalam by published works. Since the educational qualifications and the nature of the work of the Academic Staff were same as that of the University staff, the governing body on 18th August 1983 decided to enhance the retirement age of the Director and other Academic Staff to 60 years. The above decision taken by the governing body was on the basis of the report of Special Secretaries to Government, Finance Department, who were authorised by the governing body to prepare a report on the retirement age and granting of pension of the employees of the State Institute of Languages and Vijnana Mudranam Press.

Since the employees of the Vijnana Mudranam Press were having educational qualifications below S.S.L.C. and also taking into account of the fact that Vijnana Mudranam Press right from its inception has been running at a loss, the report prepared by the Special Secretaries to Government, Finance Department and Higher Education Departments recommended not to enhance the retirement age of Administrative staff of the State Institute of Languages and employees of the Vijnana Mudranam Press from 55 years. Also the educational qualifications of the Administrative staff is only a pass in S.S.L.C.

On the basis of the above pleadings it is argued that there was no discrimination between the academic staff on the one hand and the administrative staff and employees of the press on the other hard. Sri P. Parameswaran Nair, learned Counsel for the Respondent brought to my notice the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Tejinder Singh and Another Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. and Another, wherein the Supreme Court was considering the validity of the different age of superannuation for the management staff and the clerical staff of the refinery division of the Bharat Petfoleum Corporation. The Supreme Court considering the above question held that the disparity at the age of retirement between the two groups of employees does not amount to discrimination. Clerical staff and the management staff belong to separate classifications. The two classes do not stand at par. Classification on the basis of reasonable differentia is a well-known basis.

Yet Anr. decision of the Supreme Court cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent is Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs. S.S. Srivastava and Others, . In the above decision the Supreme Court was considering the discrimination regarding the age of retirement between the employees belonging to Class I and Class II on the one hand and Class III and Class IV on the other hand. The Supreme Court in the above decision held as follows:

We do not also find much substance in the contention of the 1st Respondent that there cannot be any discrimination as regard the age of retirement between the employees belonging to Class I and Class II on the one hand and Class III and Class IV on the other. It is true that originally employees belonging to Class III and Class IV categories amongst the transferred employees were given the benefit of retirement at the age of 60 years but the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV categories recruited after 1st September 1956 were required to retire on the completion of 58 years of age. In the settlement which was arrived at between the management and the Class III and Class IV employees recruited after 1st September 1956 it was agreed that there should be no discrimination as regards the age of retirement between the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV categories amongst the transferred employees and the Class III and Class IV employees recruited after 1st September, 1956. It was pursuant to the said settlement that regulation 19 was amended with effect from 19th June 1965. Having regard to the lower emoluments and other benefits which the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV are entitled to get from the Corporation and the higher emoluments and other benefits to which officers belonging to Class I and Class II are entitled and also the nature of their work and the powers enjoyed by them we are of the view that fixation of different ages of retirement to the different classes of employees would not by itself be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

In the ruling reported in S. Rama Rao and Others Vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad and Another, a Full Bench of the High Court considered the different age fixed for superannuation in the case of employees belonging to administrative service, academic service managerial service, etc., by the Jawaharlal Nehru Technology Institute, Hyderabad. Dealing with the plea of discrimination raised by the Petitioners therein the High Court held that the classification of the employees as administrative service, academic service, managerial service, etc. for the purpose of fixing the age of superannuation is reasonable and was based on intelligible differentia. Applying these principles to the facts of this case it is not possible to accept the contention raised by the Petitioners that fixation of different age for different groups of employees is discriminatory. It is not possible for this Court to hold that the view of the Respondent that the academic staff being highly qualified ate entitled to be treated on a par with the academic staff of the Kerala University, is either erroneous or unsustainable in law. The method of appointment and the educational qualifications for the posts borne on the academic wing and in the administrative wing are also different. Moreover, there is a report prepared by the Special Secretary to Government, Finance Department and Higher Education Departments which recommended not to enhance the retirement age of the administrative staff of the Language Institute and the employees of the press. So it can be safely inferred that there were sufficient materials before the Respondent-Institute to take the decision not to enhance the age of superannuation of persons like the Petitioners.

At the same time, it is made clear that anything contained in this judgment will not debar the governing body of the Institute, which is the supreme body to decide the matters like the age of superannuation, from deciding the question in accordance with law.

With the above observation the Original Petition is disposed of.