B.P. SINGH AND ORS versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, ORDNANCE FACTORY AND ORS

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 09-07-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B 
B.P. SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
DIRECTOR GENERAL, ORDNANCE FACTORY AND ORS. 
JULY 9, 1991 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL JJ.) 
Civil Service-Teachers employed in the schools & controlled by 
Defence Department-Age of retirement whether 58 or 60 years. 
In the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia, 
C 
the petitioners teachers, employed in the schools run by the respon-
dents, controlled by till> Defence Department of the Government of 
India, contended that the action of the respondents in retiring them at 
the age of 58 years, whereas retaining similarly situated teachers work-
ing in other departments upto the age of 60 years was discriminatory 
D and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The respondents filed the Office Memorandum dated 10.3.1989 
issued by the Ministry of Personnel, wherein it was stated that the age of 
retirement of the teachers working in all the Departments and Organi-
sations was uniformly fixed at 58 years. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court, 
HELD: With effect from April 1, 1989 the age of superannua-
tion of all teachers working in Central Government Departments and 
Organisations including Union Territories has been uniformly fixed at 
58 years. [838F] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ petition (C} No. 118 of 
1987. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
O.P. Sharma, K.R. Gupta, Vivek Sharma, R.C. Gubrele and 
Ms. Nanita Sharma for the Petitioners. 
M. Chander Sekhran, Additional Solicitor General-I, P. 
Parmeshwaran, S.N. Terdal, Ms. Kitty Kumaramangalam, Ms. A. 
Subhashini and Ms. Sangeeta Aggarwal for the Respondents. 
836 
.. 
B.P. SINGH v. DIRECTOR GENERAL [SINGH, l.] 
837 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. B.P. Singh and nine other teachers emp-
loyed in the schools run by the Ordnance Factories at Kanpur and 
Muradnagar, have filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitu_-
tion of India challenging their retirement from service on attaining the 
age of 58 years. They claim that they are entitled to have the age of 
superannuation fixed at 60 years instead of 58 years. 
Mr. O.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, 
has contended that the age of superannuation of the teachers working 
in the schools controlled by various departments of Government of 
India other than the Defence Department has been enhanced to 60 
years and according to him there is no justification to single-out the 
teachers working in the schools run by the Ordnance Factories under 
the control of the Defence Department of Government of India 
Mr. Sharma has relied upon a Memorandum issued by the 
Government of India, Ministry of Education dated September 6, 1983 
by which the age of retirement of Delhi School Teachers and teachers 
in other Union Territories was raised to 60 years. He has also relied on 
a Memorandum .dated March 9, 1984 issued by the Railway Board 
wherein the age of superannuation of t~e teachers_ w<:>_rking In the 
Railway schools was also enhanced to 60 years. 
Mr. Sharma has thus argued that the action of the respondents in 
retiring the petitioners at the age of 58 years whereas retaining simi-
larly situated teachers working in other departments of Government of 
India upto the age of 60 years, is discriminatory and as such violative 
of Artic:_les 14 and 16 of th"- Constitution of India. Prima facie there 
seems to be force in the argument but in view of the Office 
Memorandum dated March 10, 1989 issued by the Government of 
India, Ministry of Personnel, New Delhi, it is not necessary to examine 
the sa.;,e. Shri N. Siva Subramaniam, Joint Secretary, Ministry of 
Defence has, alongwith an additional affidavit dated March 16, 1989 
· filed the said Memorandum in this court which is reproduced here-
under: 
"As the Ministry of Human Resource Development 
etc. are aware, the age of superannuation for all Central 
Government employees, save with the exception of a few 
categories, has been fixed at 58 years and they are to retire 
A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
on the last day of the month in which they attain that age. 
H 
838 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1991] 2 S.C.R. 
However, there is no uniformity in the age of superannua-
tion of teachers in various schools/institutions in the Cent-
ral Government. 
2. In the light of the observations of the Fourth Central 
Pay Commission regarding the age of retirement of Central 
Government employees, the Government has reviewed the 
entire que
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.