ACHHAIBAR MAURYversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

A                         ACHHAIBAR MAURYA                                    -;.

                                  v.
                          STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

                           DECEMBER 13, 2007
B
             (S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]


         Service Law:

c        Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981:

       r. 29-Age of superannuation of teacher-Claim regarding
  'session benefit '-HELD: Teacher having attained age of
  superannuation on 30th June, would not be entitled to the benefit of
  extendedperiod-Fixing ofcut-offdate-Constitution ofIndia, 1950-
D Articles 14 and 16-Administrative Law--Principles ofnatural justice.         r·

         Principles ofnatural justice-Superannuation-HELD: A person
    retires automatically on completion of age of superannuation-
    Principles ofnatural justice have no application in such a case.
E
        The appellant was an Assistant Teacher in a primary school. His
  date of birth was 1.7.1943. He was to superannuate on attaining the age
  of60 years. He claimed the 'session benefit' in terms of the proviso to
  r.29 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 1981     i     -
F contending that as he would superannuate on 1.7.2003, he would be
  entitled to the 'session benefit' and thus would continue till the end of
  the academic session (i.e. from July to 30th June). His writ petition and
  writ appeal having been dismissed, he filed the instant appeal.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
       HELD: 1.1. A person attains a specified age on the day preceding
  the anniversary of his birthday. This has to be determined on the
  touchstone of statute operating in the field and in absence thereof by
  common law principle. (Para 10 and 12] [572-F; 573-C]
H                                  568
         ACHHAIBARMAURYAv. STATEOFU.P.                                569

    Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State ofRajasthan & Anr., AIR (1986) SC A
1948, relied on.

      Re Shurey Savory v. Shurey L. R., (1918) 1 Ch.263 and Rex v. Scoffin
L.R., (1930) 1KB741, referred to.
     Halsbury 's Laws, 4th Edition Reissue, Page 209, referred to.           B

     1.2. The terms and conditions of service of an Assistant Teacher
are governed by the provisions ofUttar Pradesh Basic Education Act,
1972 and the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules,
1981 framed under sub-section (1) of Section 19 thereof. In terms of         c
Rule 29, a teacher is to retire on the date on which he completed 60
years and, thus, on the last day of month when the person is born.
                                                    [Para 7) [571-F, G]

      1.3. The benefit of getting an extended period of service must be D
conferred by a statute. The Legislature is entitled to fix a cut off date.
A cut off date fixed by a statute may not be struck down unless it is
held to be arbitrary. What would, therefore, be an employee's last
working date would depend on the wordings of the Rules. The question
as to whether a teacher would obtain the benefit of extended period of E
service upto 30th June of the next year will depend upon the situation
as to whether the teacher retires on or after 1st July or not. In the instant
case as the appellant was born on 1st July, 1943, he would retire on 30th
June, 2003. [Para 8 and 9] [571-G; 572-A, B, CJ
      S. Benerjee v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] Supp.2 SCC 486, F
distinguished.
      Khan Chandra Madhu v. Deputy Director ofEducation, 3rd Division,
Bare illy & Ors., (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1128, disapproved.
      2. A person retires automatically on the day when he completes G
the age ofsuperannuation. Principles of natural justice, therefore, cannot
be said to have any application in a case of this nature. The plea that
the appellant was entitled to a hearing is not tenable as the matter
relating to retirement from service depended upon the statutory
                                                                             H
    570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.


A provisions. [Para 10)(572-E, F]                                                ,. ~
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5877 of
    2007.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 08.09.2006 of the High Court
B of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. (221) of2004.
         S.C. Kushwaha and S.K. Nandy for the Appellant.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
c
       2. Interpretation and application of the rule in regard to grant of
  benefit known as 'session' 'benefit' is the question involved in this appeal
  which arises out of a judgment and order dated 8.9 .2006 passed by a
  Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.221
D of2004.
        3. Appellant herein was born on 1st July, 1943. He was appointed
  as an Assistant Teacher on 21st July, 1975 in a primary school known as
  Kisan Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalay, Itally Gazna, District Jaunpur. The
E terms and conditions of service of a teacher indisputably is governed by
  the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (for short, 'the 1972 Act')
  and the rules framed under the State's rule making power contained in
  sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act known as Uttar Pradesh Basic
  Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Rule 29 of the said Rules
                                                                                 i
F provided for age of superannuation in the following terms :
          "29 Age ofsuperannuation. --{ 1) Every teacher shall retire from
          service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he
          attains the age of 60 years :

G
          Provided that a teacher who retires during an academic session
          (July l to June 30) shall continue to work till the end of the
          academic session, that is, June 30 and such period of service will
          be deemed as extended period of employment."
        Academic session has been defined to mean the period from 1st July
H
         ACHHAIBARMAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. [SINHA, J.]                      571


       to 30th June.                                                             A

            4. Contention of the petitioner before the High Court as well as
       before us is that as in terms of a notice dated 28.2.2003 issued by the
       Principal, Kishan Inter College, Ittailli, Gujana, Jaunpur, he was to retire
       from service on 1st July, 2003, and, thus, was entitled to the 'session B
       benefit' in terms ofRule 29 of the Rules.
            The said benefit having been denied to him, he filed a writ petition
       before the Allahabad High Court which was marked as writ petition
       No.21758 of2003. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned
       Single Judge. A Division Bench of the said High Court, by reason of the C
       impugned judgment, has affinned the same.
            5. The appellant is, thus, before us.
             6. Mr. S.C. Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
• ~    appellant, at the outset, drew our attention to a judgment and order dated D
       14th May, 1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court, which
       is reported in Khan Chandra Madhu v. Deputy Director ofEducation,
       3rd Division, Bareilly & Ors., (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1128, wherein a
       purported circular letter dated 5th June, 1987 eliminating 1st July as the
       cut off date for obtaining the said benefit was declared ultra vires. The E
       learned counsel submitted that in a situation ofthis nature, the date of
       retirement should be held to be 1st July and not 30th June.
• 'f         7. The question in regard to the determination of age of
       superannuation of an employee is governed by the Rules. Indisputably, F
       the terms and conditions of service of an Assistant Teacher are governed
       by the provisions of 1972 Act and the Rules framed under sub-section
       (1) of Section 19 thereof. The Rules were amended on or about 12th
       June, 1989. In terms of Rule 29, a teacher is to retire on the date on
       which he had completed 60 years on the last day of month when the G
       person is born.
            8. As the appellant was born on 1st July, 1943, he would retire on
       30th June, 2003. The question as to whether he would obtain the benefit
       of extended period of service upto 30th June and the next year will
                                                                                 H
    572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A depend upon the situation as to whether the teacher retires on or after          ....   .,.-'.
  1st July or not.

         9. In Khan Chandra Madhu (supra), the learned Judge proceeded
    on the basis that the academic session starts on 2nd July and ends on
    30th June.
B
        A benefit of getting an extended period of service must be conferred
  by a statute? The Legislature is entitled to fix a cut off date. A cut off        ol.6
  date fixed by a statute may not be struck down unless it is held to be
  arbitrary. What would, therefore, be an employee's last working date
c would depend on the wordings of the Rules. It may seem unfortunate as
  some people may miss the extended period of service by a day; but
  therefor a valid provision may not be held to be invalid on the touchstone
  of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. A statute cannot be
  declared unconstitutional for conferring benefit to a section of the people.
D We, therefore, do not agree with the view taken in Khan Chandra
                                                                                          ~       •
  Madhu (supra).
        10. In S. Benerjee v. Union ofIndia & Ors., [1989] Supp.2 SCC
  486, whereupon reliance has been placed, the fact situation obtaining was
E completely different. In that case, the appellant filed an application for
  voluntary retirement which was accepted from the forenoon of 1st January,
  1986. In that view of the matter, he was found to be entitled to the benefit
  of paragraph 17.3 of the recommendations of the Pay Commission.
         It was urged that the appellant was entitled to a hearing as the matter    'f        ,
F relating to retirement from service depended upon the statutory provisions.
  A person retires automatically on the day when he completes the age of
  superannuation. Principles of natural justice, therefore, cannot be said to
  have any application in a case of this nature. A person attains a specified
  age on the day next before the anniversary of his birthday or in other words
G on the day preceding that anniversary. [See Re Shurey Savory v. Shurey
  (L.R. (1918) 1 Ch.263) and Rex v. Sco.ffin (L.R. (1930) 1 KB 741)].
          11. This Court in Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan &
    Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1948] held :
H
            ACHHAIBAR MAURYAv. STATE OF U.P. [SINHA, J.]                        573

~~ ~             "In calculating a person's age, the day of his birth must be counted A
                 as a whole day and he attains the specified age on the day preceding
                 the anniversary of his birthday."

                12. lt is interesting to note, however, that the common law rule stated
          in Re Shurey Savory (supra) in respect of anniversaries has been B
          abrogated by virtue of the Family Law Reform Act, 1969. The effect of
-'-·-"    the change is that, in respect of anniversaries falling after I January, 1970,
          the time at which a person attains a particular age expressed in years is
          the commencement of relevant anniversary of the date of his birth. [See
          Hals bury 's Laws, 4th Edition Reissue, Page 209]. We do not have such C
          statute. We have, therefore, to determine the cases on the touchstone of
          statute operating in the field and in absence thereof by common law
          principle.
                 13. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in
  -t     · this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. However, as nobody has appeared D
           on behalf of the Respondent-State, there sr.all be no order as to costs.
          RP.                                                   Appeal dismissed.