STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus GOPAL CHANDRA PAUL AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 14-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
GOPAL CHANDRA PAUL AND ORS. ETC. 
JULY 14, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.J 
B 
Service Law : 
West Bengal Sen1ice Rules-l'art I: Rule 75-Superannuation-58 years 
in respect of Govemment employees-Higher age limit of 60 in respect of C 
teaching staff-Inspecting staff-Whether entitled to higher retirement 
age-Held: No. 
Under Rule 75 of the West Bengal Service Rules • Part I, Government 
servants other than class IV shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years, 
with a proviso that it will not be applicable in cases where higher age-limit D 
upto 60 years for retirement had been fixed by the Government. By notifica-
tion the age of superannuation of teaching staff was fixed at 60. 
The Inspecting staff in the Education Department claimed parity 
with the teaching staff in respect of the higher retirement age. The High 
Court allowed the same, against which the State of West Bengal preferred E 
the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that since the inspect-
ing staff was neither a feeder post to• the teaching staff nor the rules 
prescribed for transfer of inspecting staff to become member of the teach-
F 
ing staff, the Inspecting staff should be required to retire on their attaining 
the age of 58 years. 
The respondents contended that practice had grown that the teach-
ing staff and inspecting staff are interchangeable and in the absence of 
material to the contrary, it must be deemed to have been admitted that the G 
teaching staff and the inspecting staff are inter-changeable and hence 
entitled to parity in respect of higher retirement age viz. 60 years. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Inspecting staff governed by the statutory rules are not H 
141 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A on par with the teaching staff. Therefore, they are rec1uired to retire 
compulsorily on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years and shall 
retire in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he/she attains 
the age of 58 years. [1~7-D] 
2. Statutory rules do not prescribe transfer of the inspecting staff or 
B 
the teaching staff to the other service as a mode of recruitment nor is it a 
feeder post for the other service. In other words, the teaching staff and 
inspecting staff are two distinct and independent services and the two 
streams never mingled at any stage. The qualifications, the mode of 
recruitment and service conditions are separate. The cadres are distinct. 
C The inspecting staff are entirely to look after the inspection of the schools 
while the teaching staff are required to impart education to the students. 
[146-D-E] 
3. When statutory rule 75 expressly prescribes the maximum super-
annuathm of 58 years to all Government employees excluding the excepted 
D class or classes and the teacher is one such class, an Inspector, a distinct 
cadre, by no.stretch of imagination can be taken as a teacher. The second 
proviso is an exception to rule 75 ·which enables the State Government to 
grant the benefit by a notification and pursuant thereto the statutory 
notification was issued prescribing superannuation of 60 years for a 
E 
teacher. Rule 75 is unequivocal and clear. Stray incidents of transfer by 
subordinate officers would not give legitimaC'y to claim parity at the stage 
of superannuation. [146-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 
1995 Etc. 
• 
F 
From the Judgiµent and' Order dated 4.8.94 of the Calcutta High 
Court in C.R. No. 1755 M(W) of 1989. 
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Tapas Ray and H.K. Puri 
for the Appellants. 
G 
A.K. Sen, V.B. Joshi and G.S. Chatterjee for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. RAMASWAMY, J. Leave granted 
H 
Shorn off procedural wrangles, the core question in these appeals is 
STATE OFW.B. v. G.C. PAUL [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 
143 
whether the superannuation at the age of 60 years available to the teaching A 
staff of the Government schools of the Education Department of West 
Bengal would stand extended to the inspecting staff of the said Depart-
ment. The learned single judge and Division Bench reached their decision 
on intertransferability, at some stage of the teaching staff and the inspecting 
staff, which position was not accepted by the State and held that the 
inspecting staff would stand on parity with the teaching staff and thereby 
the benefit of super annuation of 60 years would be a

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