Summary
Teachers of colleges in Kerala claimed that, since the State had adopted the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the revised pay scales under them, it was bound to raise their retirement age to 65 as part of a composite scheme. The High Court dismissed their writ petition and writ appeal. The Supreme Court upheld those concurrent findings. It held that the issue was covered by Jagdish Prasad Sharma: a State is not bound to accept or follow the UGC Regulations, and a retirement age fixed under Article 309 is not displaced by them. It also noted that the Central Government's circular of 14 August 2012 under Section 20 of the UGC Act de-linked the age of superannuation from the scheme and left it to the States. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether a State that adopted the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the revised pay scales was bound to enhance the age of superannuation of college teachers to 65 years.
- Whether the UGC Regulations override State rules under Article 309 fixing the retirement age.
- Whether paragraphs 68 and 72 of Jagdish Prasad Sharma support the teachers' claim.
Provisions considered
- Section 20, University Grants Commission Act, 1956Regulations made by the UGC must conform to policy directions of the Central Government. The Central Government's circular of 14 August 2012 left the retirement age to the States and withdrew the condition of enhancing it to 65 years. (¶¶ 3, 7, 8, 9, 20, 27, 28)
- Section 26, University Grants Commission Act, 1956The UGC Regulations, 2010 framed under Section 26 deal with standards; prescribing a teacher's retirement age does not affect standards and the Regulations cannot change a State's statutory retirement age. (¶¶ 4, 9, 26)
- Article 309, Constitution of IndiaThe retirement age of teachers in Kerala is fixed by rules made under Article 309, which are not overridden by the UGC Regulations or by the State's order adopting the pay scales. (¶¶ 21, 24, 26, 27, 29)
Held
- The question was concluded against the teachers by Jagdish Prasad Sharma and there was no change in the law since then. A retirement age fixed by rules under Article 309 cannot be modified by Regulations under the UGC Act. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 28)
- The Central Government's circular of 14 August 2012 under Section 20 de-linked the age of superannuation and left it to the policy of each State. Fixing the retirement age is a policy matter for the State Government, and Kerala decided not to raise it. (¶¶ 7, 8, 27, 29)
- Paragraph 68 of Jagdish Prasad Sharma contains only a discussion of facts, and paragraph 72 goes against the teachers: it holds that the State is not bound to accept or follow the UGC Regulations. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- A judgment is a precedent only on the question of law that it raises and decides. Its discussion cannot be read out of context as the Court's dictum. (¶ 32)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The concurrent findings of the Single Bench and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court were upheld.