LexP.J. DHARMARAJ versus CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 374 : 2024 INSC 938 P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 14029 of 2024) 06 December 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B.Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the claim of the appellant seeking retirement age as sixty five years. Headnotes† Service law – Retirement age – Age of superannuation, enhancement to 65 years – Appellant appointed as Director in CSIIT, affiliated with University governed by the laws applicable in the State of Telangana – At the time of issuance of the appointment letter, the age of superannuation according to the All India Council For Technical Education-AICTE and University Grants Commission-UGC Regulations was sixty years – Subsequently, the regulations were revised and the age of superannuation for teachers in Technical Institution enhanced to sixty-five years – Writ petition by the appellant seeking retirement age as sixty five years – Dismissed by the Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court – Interference with: Held: Not called for – If the State Government itself has not adopted the amended regulations, the same cannot be applicable to the CSIIT – Even CSIIT has not determined the age of retirement of teachers to be 65 years – Merely because the UGC and AICTE regulations were subsequently amended in 2010 and the age of superannuation for teachers in Technical Institutions was increased to sixty-five years, the same benefit would not automatically extend to the appellant – Government of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) decided to not adopt the amendment increasing the age of superannuation to sixty-five in their universities or colleges – Respondent No.2 Institute is a self-financing, Minority Educational Institution administered by the respondent No.1, and * Author [2024] 12 S.C.R. 375 P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors. is neither run nor funded by Central Government – Regulations governing the age of superannuation throughout the State, the JNT University and its affiliated colleges including CSIIT is sixty years of age and thus, when the teachers of the University are only to continue up to the age of sixty years, the appellant cannot be given special consideration – Teachers of CSIIT cannot have their age of retirement more than that of the teachers of the affiliating University – It would create a serious anomaly, discrimination and inequality – After the appellant was given his notice for superannuation, he continued to make representations for retiral benefits, which shows that the appellant accepted his retirement at the age of sixty – Also, the appellant not a teacher and was only involved in administrative work with CSIIT – Appellant not led any evidence to prove that he qualifies as a teacher after becoming Director – AICTE and UGC regulations are applicable only to those who qualify as teachers and are discharging classroom teaching duties – Furthermore, the appellant has already retired, and respondent No.4 appointed in place of the appellant, is discharging his duties as Director. [Paras 9, 10] Case Law Cited Islamic Academy of Education and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 474 : (2003) 6 SCC 697; Sreejith P.S. v. Rajasree M.S. and Ors. [2022] 18 SCR 252 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473; Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors. [2015] 3 SCR 467 : (2015) 6 SCC 363; Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University and Ors. [2015] 10 SCR 1049 : (2015) 16 SCC 530; T.M.A Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. [2002] Supp. 3 SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC 481 – distinguished. List of Keywords Retirement age as sixty five years; Retirement age; Age of superannuation for teachers; Anomaly; Discrimination; Inequality; Leave encashment and gratuity. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14029 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2021 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WA No. 753 of 2019 376 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aditi Gupta, Mandeep Kalra, Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Ms. Radhika Jalan, Yashas J, Ms. Arushi Kulshrestha, Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh, Advs. for the Appellant. Vinay Navare, J. Prabhakar, Sr. Advs., A. Sreenivas, Abhijeet Sinha, Sarthak Gaurav, Ms. Rimmi Bharadwaj, Ravinder Agarwal, Lekh Raj Singh, Amit Gaurav Singh, Harish Pandey, Anil Soni, Advs. for t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.