Summary
The Supreme Court denied a medical professor the benefit of Uttar Pradesh’s later increase in retirement age because he had already superannuated and was continuing only under a conditional session-ending extension. That extension did not postpone retirement. The Court nevertheless rejected the High Court’s conclusion that the retirement-age notification itself was ultra vires: it was a special order permitted by the service rules. The appeals were dismissed and terminal benefits directed to be released within two months of receipt of the certified order.
Issues
- Whether a professor continuing on a session-ending extension after retirement could claim the subsequent prospective increase in retirement age from 60 to 65.
Provisions considered
- Rule 26, Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers Service Rules, 1990The special-order exception permitted the notification enhancing retirement age; the High Court’s contrary view based on Fundamental Rule 56 was erroneous. (¶¶ 3, 15)
Held
- The notification of 6 February 2015 was a special order contemplated by Rule 26. The enabling MCI regulations also permitted enhancement; the notification could not be treated as ultra vires Fundamental Rule 56 on the High Court’s reasoning. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The 19 November 2012 session-ending benefit applied after retirement, subject to teaching, service, conduct and inquiry-related conditions. It prevented disruption of instruction but neither automatically continued service nor altered the retirement date. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The increase to 65 operated prospectively for teachers who had not already attained superannuation. The appellant had crossed the applicable retirement age before the notification; the cited comparators attained 60 afterwards, so discrimination was not established. (¶¶ 19, 20, 24)
- The school-teacher regulation considered in Ram Vir Sharma expressly deemed an extension to the academic year’s end, unlike this conditional arrangement. Decisions concerning promotion or abolition of the direct-recruitment age limit did not decide the appellant’s entitlement. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
Result
Appeals dismissed without costs; terminal benefits to be computed and released within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Pending applications disposed of.