Since these three matters are inter connected, with the consent of parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.
W.P. No. 6621/10 is taken as a leading matter. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of these matters are as under :-
The petitioners are Teachers in technical institutions. The institutions in which the petitioners are working are admittedly getting the grant-in-aid from the State Government. This is also admitted between the parties that the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 is applicable to the technical institutions in which petitioners are working.
2. The case of the petitioners is that AICTE issued a regulation which is published on 5-3-2010 in the Gazette of India, which is known as All India Technical Education Council [Technical Institutions (Diploma) for Teachers and other Teaching Staff Pay Scale, Service Conditions and Eligibility] Regulations, 2010. These regulations are hereinafter referred as "2010 Regulations". A copy of regulations is placed as Annexure P-6 in W.P. No. 2371/11. By way of aforesaid regulations, the AICTE revised the pay scales and other service conditions of the teaching staff. The age of superannuation is mentioned in internal page 11 of the said Gazette notification. A perusal thereof shows that the UGC circular dated 23-3-2007 is borrowed for the purpose of fixing the age of superannuation of teaching staff. The said circular dated 23-3-2007 is filed as Annexure P-5 with W.P. No. 2371/11. In Clause 2 (i) it is mentioned that the age of superannuation of only teaching staff working on regular basis against sanctioned post as on 15-3-2007 in any of the centrally funded higher and technical educations under the Ministry shall be increased from 62 to 65 years. Consequently, by AICTE regulations, the said provision is borrowed.
3. Shri D.K. Katare, Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi and Shri Vivek Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that in obedience of the said 2010 Regulations, the State Government has issued the order dated 19-10-2010.In the order itself it is made clear that it is issued by following the 2010 Regulations and it shall be applicable to all Government, Autonomous and Aided Polytechnic Institutions. Thus, the stand of the petitioners is that the 2010 Regulations have a binding force and it is not voluntary either for the State Government or for the institutions to follow or not to follow it. To elaborate, the Counsel submit that once 2010 Regulations are implemented and the order dated 19-10-2010 is issued by the State Government making it applicable to all Government, Autonomous and Aided Institutions, it is no more open for the aided institutions to decline enhancement of age for retirement from 62 to 65 years.
4. Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi relied on Grant-in-Aid Rulas for Non-Government Institutions (Technical) in Madhya Pradesh. The rules are filed as Annexure P-6 with W.P. No. 4532/11. The learned Counsel submits that the' institutions are getting the Grant-in-Aid from the State Government and, therefore, are bound by the decision and conditions passed by the State Government. By relying on these rules, the learned Counsel submits that it is not open to the aided institutions to say that these rules have no application. In nutshell, the singular question before this Court is whether it is open for the aided institutions to decline implementation of State Government order dated 19-10-2010 and whether such institutions can deny the benefit of extension of age of retirement to its teachers ?
5. Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, on the other side, submits that the AICTE Act and regulations made thereunder are applicable Only to the extent the Act permits. He submits that this Act and regulations makes it clear that it basically deals with the standard of education and not with the service conditions of the employees of the technical institutions. He further submits that neither under the AICTE Act nor under the UGC Act, any service conditions of employees are laid down. He also relied on various Supreme Court judgments.
6. In the opinion of this Court, this is a peculiar case where the 2010 Regulations were accepted by the State Government and a consequential order dated 19-10-2010 is already issued. In the order dated 19-10-2010 it is made clear that it will have an application on Government, Autonomous and Aided Institutions. Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on 1992 Supp (3) SCC 191, T.P. George and others Vs. State of Kerala and others, to submit that it is for the State Government to implement the scheme in a modified form and aggrieved teachers of private institutions cannot claim as a right that after accepting major portion of the scheme, State Govt. is bound to accept the age of retirement as well. I have considered the said submission. This judgment has no application in the facts situation of the present case. The scheme which was considered by the Kerala High Court in W.A. No. 223/91 and in turn by the Supreme Court in the said matter itself provides that this is a voluntary scheme and has no binding on the State Government. This judgment has no application because in the present case the State Government has already accepted 2010 Regulations and passed a consequential order. Shri Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, then relied on (2007) 11 SCC 58, 13. Bharat Kumar and others Vs. Osmania University and others. In Page 61, it is mentioned as under :-
"The factual situation in this case is almost identical with that in T.P. George's case, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 191, where the issue was whether the retirement age stood raised to 60 years. The very language of the letter dated 27-7-1998 suggests that the scheme is voluntary and not binding at all. It is specified in the judgment of the Kerala High Court that the teachers had no right to claim a specific age because it was suggested in the scheme which itself was voluntary and not binding. The Court clearly observed that "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". The Court therein observed that it was a matter between the State Government on the one hand and the University Grants Commission on the other and it would be for the University Grants Commission to extend the benefit of the scheme or not to extend the same depending upon its satisfaction about the attitude taken by the State Government in the matter of implementing the scheme. It was also clearly observed that as long as the State Government has not accepted UGC's recommendations to fix the age of superannuation at 60 years, teachers cannot claim as a matter of right that they were entitled to retire on attaining the age of 60 years."
7. The Apex Court has followed T.P. George (supra), in this matter. The aforesaid re-produced paragraph makes it clear that it was for the State Government to accept the UGC recommendation or not. This judgment also has no application because in the present case the State Government has already accepted the recommendation and enhanced the age of retirement to 65 years.
8. Shri Gupta has also relied on (2000) 10 SCC 527, State of Bihar and another Vs. Teachers' Association of Govt. Engineering College and others. This judgment is of no assistance to the institutions because in that case the teachers of Government colleges were claiming parity in the age of retirement with teachers of Patna University. In this case, the State Government has already treated them at par and passed the order dated 19-10-2010 commanding the Government, Autonomous and Aided Institutions to enhance the age upto 65 years. Shri Gupta also relied on (2004) 1 SCC 592, Suresh Chandra Singh and others Vs. Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. and others. This judgment will also not cut any ice because in this case the employees of Public Sector Units were claiming parity in the matter of age of retirement with Central Government employees. In the present case, this parity is already recognized and established because the State Government has already passed the order dated 19-10-2010. For the same reason, K. Krishnamacharyulu and others Vs. Sri Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering and another, (1997) 3 SCC 571, cited by Shri Gupta has no application. Lastly, Shri Gupta relied on (201 i) 7 SCC 172, Khandesh College Education Society, Jalgaon and others Vs. Arjun Hari Narkhede and others, to submit that teachers of aided institutions are not Government servants. This is nobody's case, nor the petitioners are claiming the State Government employees status. Hence, the judgment cannot be pressed into service.
9. Reverting back to the order dated 19-10-2010, which will show that in Clause 3 the State Government has followed and accepted the regulations and enhanced the age of teachers from 62 to 65 years.
10. Shri Gupta submits that the document dated 21-4-2011 (Annexure R-2/2) filed with W.P. No. 2371/11 shows that the order of Government dated 16-4-2010 has no application for teachers of aided institutions. This argument deserves rejection. The petitioners are neither seeking enforcement of order dated 16-4-2010 nor order dated 21-4-2011 issued for the petitioners who were working in technical institutions. The said order is issued by Higher Education Department and, admittedly, technical institutions are not working under the Higher Education Department. The next reliance of Shri Gupta is on document dated 14-10-2010 (Annexure R/2-6) filed with W.P. No. 2371/11, whereby it is mentioned that as per memorandum and article of association of the society, governing body/managing committee has power to extend the service of an employees.
11. In the opinion of this Court, this order is also of no help to the respondents. The petitioners are not seeking any extension of service. They are claiming that their age of retirement has already been enhanced by the State Government and it should be implemented.
12. Reverting back to the Grant-in-Aid rules would show that these rules are binding on the aided institutions. The institutions, which are taking Grant-in-Aid from the State Government are bound by the orders of the State Government. Following portion of these rules are reproduced :-
"The staffing pattern of the institutions for teaching staff, supporting staff and other staff would be as per pattern approved by the Government of India and the all India Council of Technical Education and agreed to by the State Government in case of Engineering Colleges, Polytechnics and professional/vocational institutions receiving Grant-in-Aid from the Government.
The employees of grantee institutions shall be entitled to scales of pay, allowances dearness allowance and such other allowances/benefits which are applicable to the employees of Government institutions.
All orders issued and embargoes imposed by the State Government to tide over financial stringencies shall be applicable to grantee institutions also."
13. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. K. Hale aha and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, W.P. No. 13449/2011 and other connected matters has allowed the petition. In the said case, the Karnataka High Court relied on the UGC regulations and held that those regulations are binding on the respondents.
14. In the light of aforesaid, it is clear that the aided institutions are bound to follow the orders and rules made by the State Government. Once the State Government has passed the order dated 19-10-2010, it is not open to the institutions to keep the age of retirement of teachers as 62 years. They are bound to follow the order dated 19-10-2010.
15. Result is inevitable. The orders in different petitions prematurely retiring the petitioners at the age of 62 years are quashed and set aside. The age of retirement of the petitioners shall be 65 years. The respondents are bound to implement the order of the State Government dated 19-10-2010. The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.
Comments