Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar, was appointed as a Lecturer at Priyadarshani College of Education, Nagpur, on 06.10.2003, with her appointment approved by Nagpur University on 28.10.2003. Based on a retirement age of 60 years, she was to superannuate on 26.10.2013. However, on 20.10.2011, the College Principal issued a communication stating that as per a Circular dated 25.03.2010 from the Secretary of the Society (respondent no.3), she would superannuate on 27.10.2011 upon attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner objected on 21.10.2011, asserting her entitlement to continue till 60 years, and approached the University on 24.10.2011. The University responded on 07.12.2011 that the Government had fixed the retirement age at 62 years, and she was entitled to continue till 60 years. Despite this, the petitioner was treated as superannuated at 58 years, leading to the writ petition. The legal issue was whether a private unaided college could retire a lecturer at 58 years contrary to Government Resolutions prescribing 60 years as the retirement age for teachers in non-government colleges. The petitioner argued that Government Resolution dated 11.12.1999 set the retirement age at 60 years for teachers in Non-Agricultural Universities, affiliated Colleges, and Institutes of Science, and Government Resolution dated 25.02.2011 also prescribed 60 years for non-government colleges. The respondents contended that the college, being a private unaided institution, was not bound by these resolutions. The court analyzed that the Government Resolutions were applicable to all non-government colleges, including private unaided ones, and the University's approval of the petitioner's appointment at age 60 created a legitimate expectation. The court held that the college's circular reducing the retirement age to 58 years was invalid and could not override the Government Resolutions. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the communication dated 20.10.2011, and directed that the petitioner be treated as having continued in service till the age of 60 years, with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Retirement Age - Government Resolutions - Binding Nature - The issue was whether a private unaided college could retire a lecturer at 58 years despite Government Resolutions prescribing 60 years as retirement age for teachers in non-government colleges - The court held that Government Resolutions dated 11.12.1999 and 25.02.2011 are binding on all non-government colleges, including private unaided institutions, and the college's circular reducing retirement age to 58 years was invalid - Held that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a private unaided college can retire a lecturer at the age of 58 years contrary to Government Resolutions prescribing retirement age of 60 years for teachers in non-government colleges?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The communication dated 20.10.2011 issued by the Principal of the College retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as having continued in service till the age of 60 years and grant her all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Retirement age of teachers in non-government colleges is governed by Government Resolutions
- which are binding on private unaided institutions
- University approval of appointment at age 60 creates legitimate expectation
- Circular reducing retirement age to 58 cannot override Government Resolutions
