B. NARAYANA MURTHY & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 741 · Decided: 06-05-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

741 
B. NARAYANA MURTHY & ORS. ETC. 
A 
Y. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC. 
May 6, 1971 
IS. M. SnCRI, C. J., G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, 
B 
I. D. DUA AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.J 
J'.,d11cr1tio11af /11.rtir11rions-Raili11g agr of retire111enf of tcachers-Re-
fixing ;t at lower age-Validity-Whether violative of Ans. 14 and 16 of 
Const;tf(fion. 
The retirement age of teachers in the service of the Andhra Pradesh 
~overnmcnt. Zilla Parishads. Panchavat Samitis and Municipalities was fix-
·ed at 55 years till 1964 when Govern.meal raised the age o.f superannuation 
to 58 years. 
In 196(1 the age was raised to 60 years, but, on Nove1nbi.:r 3, 
1967. Governn1ent issued a G.0. cancelling with etfecl fro111 November 
30, 1967, the' two ·earlier G.Os. extending the age of retirement; ·1nd cor-
responding changes were made in the rules relating to teachers in the ser-
vice of Zilla Parishads, Panchayat San1itis and !vlunicipalities. 
Some teachers challenged the G.0. dated November 3, 1967 and the 
High Court, holding that the teachers whose term had already been extend-
ed had a vested right to continue, directed the State Government not to 
give effect to the G. 0. and the consequential rules as against such teachers. 
In pursuance of 'the judgment of the High Court Gov~rnrnent issued a 
memorandum dated November 8, 1968, giving effect to the directions of 
the High Court and also providing that teachers who had attained the age 
of 55 years after November 30, 1967, should be dealt with under the G.0. 
dated 3rd November, 1967, and should be retired on attaining the age 
of 55 years. 
The petitioners challenged the memorandum on the ground !hat by 
not extending the benefit of the judgn1ent of the High Court to them, 
and by fixing November 30, 1967, as the date for determining who should 
retire, Government acted arbitrarily and violated the equality rule en1bo-
·died in Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
HELD: (l) It was open to the Government to reduce the age of retire~ 
ment without exposing such reduction to any constitutional infirmity, Fix-
ing November 30, 1967, as the date for the classification of teachers who 
should retire at the age of 55 years could not be considered irrational or 
unreasonable. The object of raising the retirement age was to solve the 
problem of the dearth of qualified teachers because of the opening of new 
-schools and the need for maximum utilisation of trained intelligensia. As 
soon as the dearth of qualified teachers disappeared Government restored 
the retiring age to 55 years. 
[748F, 750C] 
(2) If the Government order dated November 3, 1967, was valid then 
·the petitioners had to retire at the age of 55 years notwithstanding the fact 
that after their initial employment the retirement age was raised first to 
58 years and then to 60 years, because, those intermediary orders had 
been cancelled by the G.O. dated November 3, 1967, before the earlier 
>Government orders became operative by actually retaining in service the 
present petitioners after their superannuation under the earlier rule. The 
c 
D 
]!' 
G 
H 
742 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R. 
other employees were given benefit pursuant to the order of th~ High. 
Court which had since become final. 
Merely because by some subsequent_ 
orders the extended date of retirement was accepted in respect of those-
employees it would not entitle, by itself, the present petitioner.;; to claim 
similar extension of age of retirement. The directions given by the High 
Court provide a valid differentia and the ,,etitioners could not claim to 
be equated with those employees who had been given such benefit. [748G-
749C] 
(3) It could not be said that the Government having accepted the judg. 
n1ent of the High Court, the earlier orders increasing the age of com-· 
pulsory retirement must automatically be held to be revived. The Govern-
ment only gave the benefit of the decision of the High Court to those em· 
ployees whose cases were covered by the principle laid down by the High 
<;ourt. 
[749H ; 750B] 
(4) Fundamental rule 56(a) does not govern the teachers employed· 
by the Municipalities, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis. 
[751AJ 
(5) The submission that the rules applicable to the teachers employed 
by such bodies were intended to be in conformity with the fundamental 
rule is of no avail to the petitioners because those rule& could not be con• 
sidered to have been automatically modified as a result of any 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.