LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

B.P. SINGH AND ORS vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, ORDNANCE FACTORY AND ORS on 9 July, 1991

Cites 2 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
Official PDFBench Kuldip Singh, Narendra Mohan Kasliwal
PETITIONER:
B.P. SINGH AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DIRECTOR GENERAL, ORDNANCE FACTORY AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/07/1991
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 1805 1991 SCR (2) 836
1991 SCC (4) 136 JT 1991 (3) 29
1991 SCALE (2)8
ACT:
Civil Service-Teachers employed in the schools &
controlled by Defence Department-Age of retirement whether
58 or 60 years.
HEADNOTE:
In the petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners teachers, employed in
the schools run by the respondents, controlled by the
Defence Department of the Government of India, contended
that the action of the respondents in retiring them at the
age of 58 years, whereas retaining similarly situated
teachers working in other departments upto the age of 60
years was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution.
The respondents filed the Office Memorandum dated
10.3.1989 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, wherein it
was stated that the age of retirement of the teachers
working in all the Departments and Organisations was

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ petition (C) No. 118 of 1987.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

O.P. Sharma, K.R. Gupta, Vivek Sharma, R.C. Gubrele and Ms. Nanita Sharma for the Petitioners.

M. Chander Sekhran, Additional Solicitor General-I, P. Parmeshwaran, S. N. Terda, Ms. Kitty Kumaramangalam, Ms. A. Subhashini and Ms. Sangeeta Aggarwal for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. B.P. Singh and nine other teachers employed in the schools run by the Ordnance Factories at Kanpur and Muradnagar, have filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging their retirement from service on attaining the age of 58 years. They claim that they are entitled to have the age of superannuation fixed at 60 years instead of 58 years.

Mr. O.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the age of superannuation of the teachers working in the schools controlled by various departments of Government of India other than the Defence Department has been enhanced to 60 years and according to him there is no justification to single-out the teachers working in the schools run by the Ordnance Factories under the control of the Defence Department of Government of India

Mr. Sharma has relied upon a Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Education dated September 6, 1983 by which the age of Retirement of Delhi School Teachers and teachers in other Union Territories was raised to 60 years. He has also relied on a Memorandum dated March 9, 1984 issued by the Railway Board wherein the age of superannuation of the teachers working in the Railway schools was also enhanced to 60 years.

Mr. Sharma has thus argued that the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioners at the age of 58 years whereas retaining similarly situated teachers working in other departments of Government of India upto the age of 60 Years, is discriminatory and as such violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Prima facie there seems to be force in the argument but in view of the Office Memorandum dated March 10, 1989 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, New Delhi, it is not necessary to examine the same. Shri N. Siva Subramaniam, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Defence has, alongwith an additional affidavit dated March 16, 1989 filed the said Memorandum in this court which is reproduced hereunder:

"As the Ministry of Human Resource Development etc.

are aware, the age of superannuation for all

Central Government employees, save with the

exception of a few categories, has been fixed at 58

years and they are to retire on the last day of the

month in which they attain that age.

However, there is no uniformity in the age of

superannuation of teachers in various

schools/institutions in the Central Government.

2. In the light of the observations of the Fourth

Central Pay Commission regarding the age of

retirement of Central Government employees, the

Government has reviewed the entire question de novo

and it has now been decided that the age of

retirement on superannuation of all teachers

working in Central Government Departments and

Organisations including Union Territories may be

uniformly fixed at 58 years, whether they are in

the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Railways,

Ministry of Defence or any other

Ministry/Department or in Delhi Administration.

Consequently, in schools/institutions where the age

of retirement on superannuation for teachers in

presently fixed at 58 years, no change is required

to be made and the incumbents as well as future

recruits shall retire on attaining the age of 58

years. However, in regard to schools/institutions

where the age of retirement on superannuation for

teachers is presently fixed at 60 years/the same

shall be lowered to 58 years w.e.f. 1st April, 1989

with the exception that the teachers who had joined

such schools/institutions prior to this date, shall

continue to enjoy the existing benefit and

superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years.

Further, in respect of such schools/institutions,

no new appointment, either on regular or ad hoc

basis, shall be made between the date of this

Office Memorandum and 1.4.1989."

It is thus obvious that with effect from April 1, 1989 the age of superannuation of all teachers working in Central Government Departments and Organisations including Union Territories has been uniformly fixed at 58 years. The only argument advanced by Mr. Sharma has, thus, been completely answered by the above quoted Office Memorandum.

The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. V.P.R. Petition dismissed.