T.P. GEORGE AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 24-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA, S. MOHAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

- --
T.P. GEORGE AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
MARCH 24, 1992 
[M.H. KANIA, CJ AND S. MOHAN, J.] 
B, 
Civil Services 
University Grants Commission Scheme, 1986-Clause 2~Age of su-
perannuation of teachers-Implementation of-State Govemment deciding to C 
implement the Scheme, but not accepting higher superannuation age of 60 
years-Whether teachers entitled to superannuate on· attaining 60 year~if-
f erent conditions of service and superannuation age for teachers of universities 
and private affiliated colleges-Whether discriminatory-Retirement age of 55 
years for affiliated college teachers too low-Experience gained by teachers 
after several years of teaching-Not to be lost by early retirement age-Con- D 
sideration and detennination of co"ect age by State Govemment-Need for. 
Clause 26 of the University Grants Commission Scheme of 1986 
framed by the Government, pursuant to the recommendations of the 
Malhotra Committee, provided that the age of superannuation for E 
teachers should be 60 years. The Scheme also contemplated certain im-
provement in the revision of pay scales and provision of assistance in that 
behalf. While the Government of Kerala decided to adopt a major part of 
the Scheme, including the revision of scales of pay it did not accept the 
recommenda~ion as to the age of superannuation. This was challenged by 
the affected teachers before the High Court, con~nding that once the State 
F' 
Government had accepted the Scheme, which also provided for higher age 
of 60 years for superannuation, all the clauses of the Scheme became 
applicable and they were entitled to superannuate at the age of 60 years. 
However, this plea was rejected by the High Court. Hence, the appeal, by 
special leave, before this Court. Some Writ Petitions were also filed before G 
this Court, by the affected teachers. 
Disposing of the cases this Court, 
HELD : 1.1 The High Court was right in holding that the UGC 
Scheme did not become applicable because of any statutory mandate H 
311 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
making it obligatory for the Government and the Universities to follow the ~ 
same, and, therefore, the State Government had the discretion either to 
B 
c 
accept or not accept the Scheme, and in its discretion, it had decided to 
accept the Scheme, subject to the one condition, that, in so far as the age 
of superannuation was concerned, they would not accept the fixation of 
higher age provided in the Scheme; and that as long as the age of super-
annuation remained fixed at 55 years, and as long as the State Government 
~ 
had not accepted the UGC's recommendation to fix at 60 years, teachers 
could not claim as a matter of right that they were entitled to retire on 
attaining the age of 60 years. [3138, F-G, 314D] 
1.2. It is clear from paragraph 4 of the circular dated 17th June, 
,,..,-
1987 of the Government of India addressed to all States/UTs (Union 
Territories) that the adoption of the Scheme was voluntary, and the only 
result which might follow from the State Government not adopting the 
scheme might be that it may not get the benefit of the oiler of reimburse-
ment from the Gove!nment to the extent of 80 per cent of the additional 
D expenditure involved in giving effect to the revision of pay scales as 
recommended by the Scheme. [314E-G] 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1680-87 
and 1672-78 of 1992. 
From the Judgments and Orders dated 22.3.91, 13.3.91, 11.3.91, 
12.3.91, 27.3.91, 14.3.91, 13.3.91, 18.3.91, 3.4.91, 19.6.91, 26.3.91, 25.3.91, 
.12.4.91 and 23.7.91 of the Kerala High Court in Original Petition No. 
3~91/1991-P, Writ Appeal Nos. 236/91, 223/91, 230/91, 306/91, 239/91, 
234/91, O.P. No. 2939/91, W.A. No. 319/910.A. Nos. 6027/91-P, 3141/90-Y, 
3335/91-V, W.A. Nos. 415, 420 and 639 of 1991. 
AND 
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 38/92, 1098/91 & 215/92. 
G 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
K.K. Venugopal, G. Viswanatha Iyer, V. Jayaprasad, T.G. Narayanan 
Nair, R.F. Nariman and E.M. S. Anam for the Appellants/Petitioners. 
P.S. Poti, T.T. Kunhi Kannan, Govind K. Bharathan, Sudhir Gopi, 
H A.G. Prasad and M.M. Kashyap for the Respondents. 
T.P. GEORGE v. STATE 
313 
The following orcfer of the Court was delivered : 
A 
Special leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
We are in agreement with the observations of the Division Bench of B 
the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 223 of 1991 quoted in the 
i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.