Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from two writ petitions filed by Professors, Associate Professors, and a Librarian serving in various colleges in Maharashtra, challenging a Government Resolution dated 12.07.2016 that reduced the age of retirement from 62 years to 60 years. The petitioners had earlier been subject to Government Resolutions issued in 2011 and 2012 that enhanced the retirement age from 58/60 years to 62 years, subject to performance evaluation. Performance Review Committees had recommended the petitioners for extension of age, but their proposals were pending with the State Government. Meanwhile, some of their colleagues whose proposals had been processed earlier were granted the enhanced retirement age of 62 years. On 12.07.2016, the Government reconsidered its earlier policies in light of the availability of qualified persons and the increased financial burden, and resolved to bring down the retirement age to 60 years. Consequently, the petitioners’ pending proposals were rejected and they were ordered to retire at age 60. The legal issues before the High Court were whether the impugned Government Resolution was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and whether the petitioners had a vested right to continue up to 62 years. The petitioners argued that the Resolution was passed without hearing them and was discriminatory because some similarly placed teachers had already received the benefit of enhanced retirement age. The State Government defended the Resolution as a policy decision within its exclusive power to alter service conditions. It cited a letter dated 14.08.2012 from the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, which clarified that the issue of retirement age was left to State Governments. The State also argued that no employee has a vested right to a particular age of retirement and that the petitioners’ proposals had not been approved before the policy change, thus there was no discrimination. The High Court, after examining the submissions and the precedents cited, held that the State Government indeed possesses the policy-making power to fix and alter the retirement age of teachers in State universities and colleges. It relied on the Supreme Court decision in Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar and the Central Government’s letter to conclude that the reduction in retirement age was a valid exercise of that power. On the discrimination claim, the Court found that the proposals of some teachers were processed and approved prior to the impugned Resolution, whereas the petitioners’ cases were still pending; therefore, there was no discriminatory treatment. It also invoked the principle that two wrongs cannot make one right, rejecting the petitioners’ attempt to claim parity with individual cases where the benefit might have been extended erroneously. The Court further held that the petitioners had no vested right to an enhanced retirement age, and the policy change was uniformly applicable to all those whose proposals were not finalized before the Resolution. In the final decision, both writ petitions were dismissed and the Government Resolution dated 12.07.2016 was upheld. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Age of Retirement - State Government's Policy-Making Power - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The State Government has the exclusive domain to alter terms and service conditions of teachers in State universities and colleges, including age of retirement - Held, the impugned Government Resolution dated 12.07.2016 reducing retirement age from 62 to 60 years is within the State's policy-making power and is not arbitrary or unconstitutional (Paras 9-10) B) Service Law - Discrimination - Equal Treatment - Constitution of India, Article 14 - Petitioners claimed discrimination as some similarly placed teachers were given benefit of enhanced retirement age before the impugned resolution - Court held that the proposals of those teachers were considered before 12.07.2016, while petitioners' proposals were not, hence no discrimination; furthermore, petitioners cannot claim parity with individual cases where benefit might have been extended wrongly (Paras 7-8) C) Service Law - Vested Right - Age of Retirement - Constitution of India - No employee has a vested right to a particular age of retirement; it is subject to change by the government in its policy-making power - Held, the reduction of retirement age from 62 to 60 years does not violate any vested right of the petitioners (Paras 7, 11) D) Education Law - Teachers' Service Conditions - State Government's Authority - Letter dated 14.08.2012 of Ministry of HRD, Government of India - The Central Government clarified that enhancement of age of retirement is left to State Governments - The State Government relied on this to reconsider earlier resolutions - Held, the impugned resolution is in accordance with the said letter and the State's policy (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government Resolution dated 12.07.2016 reducing age of retirement of Associate Professors and Librarian from 62 years to 60 years is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions dismissed. The impugned Government Resolution dated 12.07.2016 reducing the age of retirement from 62 to 60 years for Associate Professors and Librarian upheld. No costs.
Law Points
- State Government has exclusive policy-making power to alter service conditions including age of retirement
- no vested right to enhanced retirement age
- two wrongs cannot make one right doctrine
- Article 14 of Constitution of India
- Central Government letter leaves retirement age to State Governments
