Supreme Court of India
P. J. Dharmaraj vs Church Of South India on 6 December, 2024
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
2024 INSC 938
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.8457 of 2022)
P.J. DHARMARAJ ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA .. .RESPONDENT(S)
& ORS.
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal before us is arising out of a
judgement passed by the High Court of Telangana on
22.11.2021 in Writ Appeal 753 of 2019 whereby the
Division Bench of the High Court has upheld the
decision of the Single Judge of the High Court dated
04.09.2019 in W.P.No.45297 of 2018 whereby the
Signature Not Verified
Appellant’s Writ Petition was dismissed wherein he
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
was contesting his retirement from the Respondent
Date: 2024.12.06
15:49:51 IST
Reason:
No.2 Institute which took effect from 14.08.2018 and
1
CA @ SLP(C) No.8457 of 2022
the appointment of Respondent No.4 in his place.
Aggrieved by this, the Appellant is before us.
3. The facts of the case are such that the Appellant
before us was initially appointed as Lecturer in
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological (JNT) University in
1985. He was eventually promoted as Reader in
1995. CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT),
Respondent No.2 issued an advertisement dated
25.09.1998 for the post of Director. The Appellant
applied against the said advertisement and was
selected and appointed as Director vide appointment
letter dated 26.11.1998. At the time that the
appointment letter was issued to the Appellant, the
age of superannuation according to the All India
Council For Technical Education (AICTE) and
University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations
was sixty years. These regulations were revised vide
AICTE notification dated 22.01.2010 and UGC
regulations dated 18.09.2010 wherein the age of
superannuation for teachers in Technical Institution
was enhanced to sixty-five years.
4. During his stint of Director at CSIIT the appellant
claims to have been promoted to the post of
Professor. On 14.08.2018, the Appellant was relieved
from the post of Director and Respondent No.4 was
appointed in his place. Two days later, on
2
CA @ SLP(C) No.8457 of 2022
16.08.2018, the Appellant made a representation
praying that he be continued in service until the age
of sixty-five. Appellant filed Writ Petition No.39511 of
2018 before the High Court against the entrustment
of work to Respondent No.4. The High Court vide
order dated 02.11.2018 disposed of this Writ Petition
directing CSIIT to consider and pass orders on
Appellant’s representation dated 16.08.2018. CSIIT
in compliance of the order ultimately rejected the
Appellant’s representation on 03.12.2018. Aggrieved,
the Appellant filed Writ Petition No.45297 of 2018
which was dismissed by the Single Judge vide order
dated 04.09.2019 primarily on the ground that CSIIT
is affiliated with JNT University which is following
sixty years to be the age of superannuation and
therefore the Appellant cannot expect to be continued
in service up to sixty-five years of age. This order was
further challenged by the Appellant before the
Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal
No.753 of 2019 which was dismissed vide impugned
order dated 22.11.2021.
5. We have heard Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
and learned senior counsels, Shri Vinay Navare and
Shri J.Prabhakar appearing on behalf of Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsels Shri Ravinder
3
CA @ SLP(C) No.8457 of 2022
Agarwal and Shri Harish Pandey appearing for
Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.6 respectively.
6. The submissions advanced for the Appellant are that
he has been retired from service on a premature and
illegal basis as effected by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
It is contended that when the Appellant was
appointed to the post of Director in the year 1998, his
age of superannuation was determined as per the
AICTE and UGC regulations prevailing at that time,
which was sixty years of age. However, seeing that in
2010, AICTE and UGC issued amended regulations,
wherein the age of superannuation was revised up to
sixty-five years of age, the same benefit should be
extended to the Appellant now as professional
institutes cannot depart from such binding
regulations. This stand has been corroborated by
AICTE; Respondent No.6 vide their Counter Affidavit
as well. To establish that UGC regulations are not
merely recommendatory, reliance has been placed on
the following judgements:
i. Islamic Academy of Education and Ors. vs. State
of Karnataka and Ors1
ii. Sreejith P.S. vs. Rajasree M.S. and Ors2
iii. Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors31
2003(6) SCC 697
2
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473
3
(2015) 6 SCC 3634
CA @ SLP(C) No.8457 of 2022
iv. Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and Ors4
v. T.M.A Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka and Ors5
7. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the Respondent No.2
Institute is a Private Unaided Minority Educational
Institution, administered by Respondent No.1,
Church of South India and affiliated to the State
University in the State of Telangana. The subsequent
amendment to the UGC regulations has not been
adopted by the State of Telangana and the revised age
of sixty-five years for superannuation does not
prevail as the norm in the State and in the JNT
University with which CSIIT is affiliated.
8. It is also submitted that the Appellant was never
involved in teaching and was only working on the
post of Director with administrative duties and if the
AICTE regulations were applicable at all, the benefits
would still not extend to the Appellant as the said
regulation uses the term “Teacher” and “Principal”
distinctly which does not apply to the present
Appellant as he discharged no teaching duties. It is
further contended that the Appellant was due for
retirement at the end of February 2018 and until
4
2015 (16) SCC 530
5
(2002) 8 SCC 481
5
CA @ SLP(C) No.8457 of 2022
August 2018, the Appellant was making
representations urging that he be given academic
duties and was negotiating for his retiral benefits.
This goes to show that the Appellant himself accepted
his retirement at sixty years of age.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced, we do
not find merit in the contention that 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 automatically
extend to the Appellant. The Appellant was working
as Director in CSIIT which is affiliated with JNT
University which is governed by the laws applicable
in the State of Telangana. In this case, the
Government of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) has
decided to not adopt the amendment increasing the
age of superannuation to sixty-five in their
universities or colleges vide G.O.Ms.No.40, Higher
Education & UE-II Department, dated 28.06.2012.
The Respondent No.2 Institute is a self-financing,
Minority Educational Institution administered by the
Respondent No.1 Church of South India, and it is
neither run nor funded by the Central Government.
The regulations governing the age of superannuation
throughout the State, the JNT University and its
affiliated colleges including CSIIT is sixty years of age
6
CA @ SLP(C) No.8457 of 2022
and therefore, when the teachers of JNT University
are only to continue up to the age of sixty years, the
Appellant cannot be given special consideration.
CSIIT is an affiliated Institute of JNT University. Its
teachers 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. 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.
10. We have also considered the submission that after
the Appellant was given his notice for
superannuation, he continued to make
representations for retiral benefits such as leave
encashment and gratuity etc. This clearly goes to
show that the Appellant has accepted his retirement
at the age of sixty. Any other way, the Appellant is
not a teacher and was only involved in administrative
work with CSIIT. The Appellant has not led any
evidence until now 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.
7
CA @ SLP(C) No.8457 of 2022
11. Regarding the judgements relied upon by the
Appellant to establish that the amended UGC
regulations are not merely recommendatory, we have
considered them and find those to be distinguishable
on fact and as such we are not dealing with them.
12. In view of the above and the fact that the Appellant
has already retired, and Respondent No.4 is
discharging his duties as Director of Respondent
No.2 Institute, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgement passed by the High Court.
13. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B.VARALE)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 06, 2024
8
CA @ SLP(C) No.8457 of 2022