MISS RAJ SONI versus AIR OFFICER INCHARGE ADMINISTRATION & ANR.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 412 · Decided: 10-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MISS RAJ SONI 
v. 
AIR OFFICER INCHARGE ADMINISTRATION & ANR. 
APRIL 10, 1990 
[KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
Delhi Education Code, 1965: S. 208/Delhi Education Act, 
1973: S. 8(1)/Delhi Education Rules, 1973: Rule 110-Employee of 
pre-existing recognised school-Whether entitled to superannuate at 60 
). 
C years-Authority under statutory obligation-Whether can defy statute 
I 
on the ground that it·is not covered by the definition of 'State'· under 
Article 12 of the Constitution. 
The normal age of retirement of an employee of an aided school 
prescribed under s. 208 of the Delhi Education Code, 1965 was 60 
D years. The proviso to s. 8(1) of the Delhi Education Act, 1973, pro-
hibited the administrator from varying the conditions of service of an 
employee of an existing school at the commencement of that Act to his 
disadvantage. While fixing the retirement age of employees of recog-
nised private schools at 58 years sub-rule (1) of rule 110 of the Delhi 
Education Rules, 1973 protected the entitlement of existing employees 
E 
to higher age of retirement. 
F 
G 
I 
The petitioner-teacher, who had joined service before the coming 
_.-I 
into force of the Act, assailed her reitrement on attaining the age of 58 
years on the ground that under s. 8 of the Act read with rule 110 of the 
Rules she had a statutory right to continue upto the age of 60 years in 
terms of s. 208 of the Code and that the management had acted 
arbitrarily and discriminately in depriving her of two years of service 
°' 
and consequential benefits. For the respondents it was contended that 
the management of the school was neither a State nor an authority 
under Article 12 of the Constitution and as such no writ petition against 
~ 
the respondent-management was maintainable, and that the Education 
Code had no force of law and as such the petitioner had no enforceable 
right much less under Article 32 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the writ petition, the Court, 
HELD: I. The petitioner's claim is just. She was entitled to he 
)" 
H 
retired atthe age of60years. [4I7A, E] 
412 
RAJ SONI v. AIR OFFICER [KULDIP SINGH, J.J 
413 
2. Prior to the coming into force of the Act and the Rules the 
management was following the Delhi Education Code which provided 
60 years as the age of superannuation for the school teachers. The age of 
superannuation provided in Rule 110 of the Rules is 58 years except in 
the case of existing employees who were in service on April l, 1973, the 
date of coming into force of the Act, and in their case the higher age of 
retirement to which they were entitled bas been protected. The petitioner 
was an existing employee of the respondent management. [417E, 41SD] 
3. The respondent-management was under a statutory obligation 
to uniformly apply the provisions of the Act and tbe Rules to the teachers 
employed in the school. When an authority is required to act in a 
particular manner under a statute it has no option but to follow the 
statute. The authority cannot defy the statute on the pretext that it is 
neither a State nor an "authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution 
of India. [416G-HJ 
4. The petitioner having already attained the age of 60 years the 
A 
B 
c 
respondents are directed to pay her salary and allowances for the 
D 
period of two years. The post-retirement benefits to which she is 
entitled be redetermined assuming her to have retired at the age of 60 
years. The arrears of salary and allowances be paid to her within three 
months. [417F-G] 
\..-._ 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil} No. 7995 
E 
of 1981. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
Krishnamani and M.K.D. Namboodary for the Petitioner. 
F 
N.C. Sikri and Mrs. Madhu Sikri for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. The petitioner retired from the post of 
teacher in the Air Force Central School, New Delhi (hereinafter called 
G 
the 'School'} on her attaining the age of 58 years. The School is a 
society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. In this 
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India she claims that 
under the Delhi Education Code read with the Delhi Education Act, 
1973 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and the Delhi Education Rules, 
1973 (hereinafter called the 'Rules') the age of superannuation for the 
H 
A 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
• 
teachers who joined service before the coming into force of the Act is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.