CHANDRA MOHAN VARMA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1158 · Decided: 21-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
CHANDRA MOHAN VARMA
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 350-351 of 2020)
JANUARY 21, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers, Service Rules
1990 – r.26 – UP Fundamental Rules notified u/s.241 (2) (b) of the
Government of India Act, 1935 – Benefit of the increase in the age
of retirement from 60 to 65 years as a consequence of the notification
dated 6 February 2015 – Entitlement to, sought by the appellant
who retired on 13 August 2014 but was continuing in service in
view of the ‘session benefit’ granted by the G.O dated 19 November
2012 – Held: The Notification enhancing the age of retirement is a
special order within the meaning of Rule 26 – Notification dated 6
February 2015 not ultra vires Fundamental Rule 56 – ‘Session
ending benefit’ granted to teachers ‘after retirement’ according to
the G.O – Grant of deeming provision not automatic but conditional
– The increase in the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years
was prospective and would apply to those medical teachers in
Government Medical Colleges who had not attained the age of
superannuation under the prevailing rules – It was clarified by the
State that the said notification would not apply to teachers, such as
appellant, who had already crossed the age of superannuation as it
then stood prior to the notification dated 6 February 2015 – In the
instant case, the appellant was continuing until the end of the session
(30 June 2015) after retirement, in terms of the G.O. dated 19
November 2012 – The determination of the age of retirement is a
matter of executive policy – The appellant attained the age of
superannuation prior to the notification dated 6 February 2015
and was not entitled to the benefit of the enhancement of the age of
retirement – Ram Vir Sharma v. State of UP distinguished –
Regulation 21 of the Intermediate Education Act 1921 extended
service after the attaining superannuation in view of a deeming
provision – In contrast the 6 February 2015 notification
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1158
1158
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1159
conditionally grants session ending benefit – Therefore, appeals
dismissed – Service Law – Superannuation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 350-
351 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 35714 of 2015 and order dated
14.03.2019 in C.M. Review Petition No. 5 of 2018.
P.S. Patwalia, Sunil Gupta, Sr. Advs., M. Shoeb Alam, Siddharth
Buxy, Mojahid Karim Khan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ankit Goel, Gaurav Singh,  Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
dismissed, by its judgment dated 2 February 2018, a Writ Petition instituted
by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution. By his petition, the
appellant sought a mandamus for his continuance in service as Professor
and Head of the Department of Cardiology of the LPS Institute of
Cardiology in GSVM Medical College, Kanpur until he attained the age
of 65. He claimed this relief on the basis of a notification dated 6 February
2015 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh extending the age of retirement
from 60 to 65 years. The appellant had before the issuance of the above
government notification attained the age of superannuation of 60 years
on 13 August 2014. But, in terms of a Government decision1 dated 19
November 2012, he had been granted a ‘session benefit’ of an
extension of service up to 30 June 2015. Based on this extension, the
appellant’s case is that he is entitled to the extension in the age of
retirement which has been brought about by the notification dated 6
February 2015. This claim has been repelled by the judgment and order
of the Allahabad High Court which is questioned in appeal.
2. On 1 April 1992, the UP Fundamental Rules2 were notified
under Section 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act 1935. Rule 56
provides that:
CHANDRA MOHAN VARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
& ORS.
1 “GO”
2 “Fundamental Rules”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
“Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every Government
servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day
of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years:
Provided …”
3. On 21 December 1990, the Uttar Pradesh State Medical
Colleges Teachers, Serv

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