B. BHARAT KUMAR AND ORS. versus OSMANIA UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 168 · Decided: 09-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

, 
A 
B. BHARAT KUMAR AND ORS. 
·\ r..-
V. 
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY AND ORS. 
MAY 9, 2007 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
1 
/ 
c 
College and University teachers-Age of superannuation-Lecturers, 
Professors, Readers, librarians, Physical Education Teachers etc, were serving 
in different private colleges which were enjoying the grant~in-aid by the 
Government-They filed writ petitions in which the common prayer was that 
their age of superannuation which was hitherto 58 or 60 years, as the case 
may be, should be raised to 62 years-They relied on a University Grants 
D Commission (UGC) Notification on revision of pay scales-The State 
Government i~sued an order for implementation of the UGC pay scales to the 
teachers and agrei!d to implement the said scheme insofar as the salaries 
were concerned-The said order, however, stated that the Government had 
+-
decided that there should be no change in the age of superannuation as 
..... 
E 
existing now and it shall be retained at 58 years for the college teachers and 
60 years for the universtiy-The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed 
by the teachers-Held: The scheme \fas voluntary and it was up to the State 
Government to accept or net to accept the scheme-Again even if the State 
Government accepted a part of the scheme, it was not necessary that the 
entire scheme as it was had to be accepted by the Stale Government-The 
F scheme itself gives discretion to the State Government to accept it or not to 
accept it-If the State Government in its discretion, which is permissible to 
it under the scheme, decides to restrict the age and not to increase ii to 60 
l 
or as the case may be 62, it wa~ perfectly justified in doing so. 
The appellants were serving in different private colleges which were 
G enjoying the grant-in-aid by the Government. They were serving in the 
capacities as Lecturers, Professors, Readers, Librarians, Physical Education 
Teachers etc. Their common prayer in the writ petitions was that their age of 
superannuation which was hitherto 58 or 60 years, as the case may be, should 
be raised to 62 years. The petitioners relied on a University Grants 
/· 
H 
168 
. 
• 
• 
B. SHARA T KUMAR v. OSMAN IA UNIVERSITY 
169 
I !-
Commission (UGC) Notification on revision of pay scales. The State A 
Government issued an order for implementation of the UGC pay scales to the 
teachers and agreed to implement the said scheme insofar as the salaries 
were concerned. The said order, however, stated that the Government had 
decided that there should be no change in the age of superannuation as existing 
now and it shall be retained at 58 years for the college teachers and 60 years 
for the university teachers. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions B 
relying upon the judgment of this Court in T.P. George's case. Hence the 
appeal 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:I. The scheme was voluntary and it was up to the State C 
Governments to accept or not to accept the scheme. Again even if the State 
Government accepted a part of the scheme, it was not necessary that the entire 
scheme as it was had to be accepted by the State Government. In fact the 
subsequent developments suggest that the State Government has not chosen 
to accept the scheme in full inasmuch as it has not accepted the suggestions D 
on the part of the University Grants Commission (UGC) to increase the age 
of superannuation. (Para 14] (181-F, G] 
T.P. George v. State of Kera/a, [1992] Supp. 3 SCC 191; O.P. Sing/av. 
Union of India, [1984( 4 SCC 450; Manikal Majumdar v. Gouranga Chandra 
Dey, (2005] l SCC 400; Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, [2004] 6 E 
SCC 331; Dove Investments (P) Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Investement 
Corporation, [2006] 2 SCC 619, Prof Yashpal v. State ofChattisgarh, [2005) 
5 SCC 420; The Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar, [1963) 
Supp. 1 SCR 112; State of T.N. v. Abhiyaman Educational and Research 
Institute, [1995) 4 SCC 104 and Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP .. [1997) F 
7 sec 120, referred to. 
2. The communications even if they could be heightened to the pedestal 
of a legislation or as the cas may be, a policy decision under Article 73 of the 
Constitution, they would have to be read as they appear and a plain reading is 
good enough to show that the Central Government, or as the case may be the G 
UGC, also did not introduce the element of compulsion vis-a-vis the State 
Government and the Universities. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.