Holding

The UGC Scheme of 1986 is not a statutory mandate; the State of Kerala may accept it subject to conditions, and teachers are not entitled to a superannuation age of 60 years.

Summary

The University Grants Commission (UGC) Scheme of 1986 prescribed a superannuation age of 60 years for university teachers. The Government of Kerala adopted most provisions of the Scheme, including revised pay scales, but expressly retained a retirement age of 55 years for its teachers. A group of teachers filed petitions contending that, having accepted the Scheme, the state was bound to grant them the higher retirement age and that the differential age violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Kerala High Court rejected the claim, holding that the Scheme was not mandatory, and the Supreme Court affirmed this view. The Court observed that the Scheme was voluntary, as clarified by a 1987 circular, and that the state retained discretion to accept or modify its provisions. Consequently, teachers could not claim a statutory right to retire at 60 years, and the appeals and writ petitions were dismissed. The Court, however, expressed concern that a retirement age of 55 years for affiliated‑college teachers might be unduly low, leaving the matter to the state’s policy discretion.

Issues considered

Whether the UGC Scheme of 1986, particularly the clause fixing the superannuation age at 60 years, is statutorily binding on the State of Kerala and its universities.
Whether teachers can claim a right to superannuation at 60 years on the ground that the State has adopted the Scheme.
Whether the differential retirement ages for university teachers and teachers of affiliated/ private colleges violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 32
University Grants Commission Scheme, 1986

Subjects

UGC Scheme 1986superannuation ageretirement ageArticle 14discriminationstate discretionhigher educationteachers' service conditions

Judgment

T.P. GEORGE AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

MARCH 24, 1992

[M.H. KANIA, CJ AND S. MOHAN, J.] B,

Civil Services

- -- University Grants Commission Scheme, 1986-Clause 2~Age of su-
perannuation of teachers-Implementation of-State Govemment deciding to C
implement the Scheme, but not accepting higher superannuation age of 60
years-Whether teachers entitled to superannuate on· attaining 60 year~if-
f erent conditions of service and superannuation age for teachers of universities
and private affiliated colleges-Whether discriminatory-Retirement age of 55
years for affiliated college teachers too low-Experience gained by teachers
after several years of teaching-Not to be lost by early retirement age-Con- D
sideration and detennination of co"ect age by State Govemment-Need for.

Clause 26 of the University Grants Commission Scheme of 1986
framed by the Government, pursuant to the recommendations of the
Malhotra Committee, provided that the age of superannuation for E
teachers should be 60 years. The Scheme also contemplated certain im-
provement in the revision of pay scales and provision of assistance in that
behalf. While the Government of Kerala decided to adopt a major part of
the Scheme, including the revision of scales of pay it did not accept the
recommenda~ion as to the age of superannuation. This was challenged by
the affected teachers before the High Court, con~nding that once the State F'
Government had accepted the Scheme, which also provided for higher age
of 60 years for superannuation, all the clauses of the Scheme became
applicable and they were entitled to superannuate at the age of 60 years.
However, this plea was rejected by the High Court. Hence, the appeal, by
special leave, before this Court. Some Writ Petitions were also filed before G
this Court, by the affected teachers.

Disposing of the cases this Court,

HELD : 1.1 The High Court was right in holding that the UGC
Scheme did not become applicable because of any statutory mandate H
311
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 2 S.C.R.

A making it obligatory for the Government and the Universities to follow the ~
same, and, therefore, the State Government had the discretion either to
accept or not accept the Scheme, and in its discretion, it had decided to
accept the Scheme, subject to the one condition, that, in so far as the age
of superannuation was concerned, they would not accept the fixation of
higher age provided in the Scheme; and that as long as the age of super-
B annuation remained fixed at 55 years, and as long as the State Government ~
had not accepted the UGC's recommendation to fix at 60 years, teachers
could not claim as a matter of right that they were entitled to retire on
attaining the age of 60 years. [3138, F-G, 314D]

c 1.2. It is clear from paragraph 4 of the circular dated 17th June, ,,..,-
1987 of the Government of India addressed to all States/UTs (Union
Territories) that the adoption of the Scheme was voluntary, and the only
result which might follow from the State Government not adopting the
scheme might be that it may not get the benefit of the oiler of reimburse-
ment from the Gove!nment to the extent of 80 per cent of the additional
D expenditure involved in giving effect to the revision of pay scales as
recommended by the Scheme. [314E-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1680-87
and 1672-78 of 1992.
E From the Judgments and Orders dated 22.3.91, 13.3.91, 11.3.91,
12.3.91, 27.3.91, 14.3.91, 13.3.91, 18.3.91, 3.4.91, 19.6.91, 26.3.91, 25.3.91,
.12.4.91 and 23.7.91 of the Kerala High Court in Original Petition No.
3~91/1991-P, Writ Appeal Nos. 236/91, 223/91, 230/91, 306/91, 239/91,
234/91, O.P. No. 2939/91, W.A. No. 319/910.A. Nos. 6027/91-P, 3141/90-Y,
F 3335/91-V, W.A. Nos. 415, 420 and 639 of 1991.

AND
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 38/92, 1098/91 & 215/92.

G (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

K.K. Venugopal, G. Viswanatha Iyer, V. Jayaprasad, T.G. Narayanan
Nair, R.F. Nariman and E.M. S. Anam for the Appellants/Petitioners.

P.S. Poti, T.T. Kunhi Kannan, Govind K. Bharathan, Sudhir Gopi,
H A.G. Prasad and M.M. Kashyap for the Respondents.
T.P. GEORGE v. STATE 313

The following orcfer of the Court was delivered : A
Special leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

We are in agreement with the observations of the Division Bench of B
the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 223 of 1991 quoted in the
impugned judgment which run as follow :

"Though clause 26 of the Scheme provides that the age of
superannuation for teachers should be 60 years, and the scheme
contemplates certain improvement in the revision of pay-scales C
and providing for assistance in that behalf, it is not a scheme
which is statuto~ly binding either on the State Government or
the different Universities functioning under the relevant
statutes in the State of Kerala. What the State Government has
done by its order dated 13-3-1990 is to implement the UGC D
Scheme including revision of scales of pay in relation to
teachers in Universities including Kerala Agricultural Univer-
sity, affiliated colleges, Law Colleges, Engineering Colleges and
Qualified Librarians and qualified physical Education Teachers
with effect from 1.1.1986, subject however to the express con-
dition that in so far as the age of retirement is concerned, the E
present fixation of 55 years shall continue. The contention of
the appellant is that the State Government having accepted the
UGC Scheme, and as the scheme provides for a higher age of
60 years, once the State Government accepted the Scheme, all
the clauses of the Scheme became applicable. It is not possible F
to accede to this contention. Firstly, as already stated the UGC
Scheme does not become applicable because of any statutory
mandate making it obligatory for the Government ·and the
Universities to follow Che same. Therefore the State Govern-
ment had the discretion either to accept or not to accept the
scheme. In its discretion it has decided to accept the Scheme, G
subject to the one condition, namely, in so far as the age of
superannuation is concerned, they will not accept the fixation
of higher age provided in the Scheme. The State Government
having thus accepted the Scheme in the modified form, the
teachers can only get the benefit which flows from the Scheme H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R.

A to the extent to which it has been accepted by the State
Government and the concerned Universities. The appellant
cannot claim that major portion of the Scheme having been
accepted by the Governmept, they have no right not to accept
the clause relating to fixation of higher age of superannuation.
That is a matter between the State Government on the one
B hand and the University Grants Commission on the other,
which was provided certain benefits by the Scheme. It is for
the University Grants Commission to extend the benefit of the
Scheme or not to extend the benefit of the Scheme, depending
upon its satisfaction about the attitude taken by the State
c Government in the matter of implementing the same. That is
a matter entirely between the State Government on the one
hand and the University Grants Commission on the other.
Teachers of the private institution concerned are governed by
the Statutes framed under the relevant statutory enactment. As
long as the superannuation remains fixed at 55 years and as
D
long as the State Government has not accepted the UGC's
recommendation to fix the age of superannuation at 60 years,
teacher~ cannot claim as a matter of right that they are entitled
to retire on attaining the age of 60 years."

E We may clarify the scheme referred to UGC (University Grants
Commission) Scheme of 1986 framed by the Government pursuant to the
Malhotra'Committee's Report. We may further point-?ut that it is clear
from paragraph 4 of the circular dated 17th June, 1987, addressed by the
Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, to
F the Education Secretary of all States/UTs (Union territories) that the
adoption of the scheme was voluntary, and the only result which might
follow from the State Government not adopting the scheme might be that
it may not get the benefit of the offer of reimbursement form the Govern-
ment to the extent of 80 per cent of the additional expenditure involved in
giving effect to the revision of pay scales as recommended by the Scheme.
G
We may further point out that the teachers in Universities are
governed in respect of their conditions of service and the age of retirement
by the separate statutes made by the Universities concerned. On the other ~·
hand the teachers in private colleges or affiliated colleges are governed in
H respect of their conditions of service by regulations or rules framed by the
T.}:1. GEORGE v. STATE 315

Government (separate set of statutes). In these circumstances, the two A
classes of Universities teachers and teachers in private colleges cannot be
regarded as similar for purposes of conditions .of service as to bring the
case under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Although the appeals and the writ petitions, in our view, cannot
succeed, we do feel that age of retirement fixed at 55 years in the case of B
teachers of affiliated colleges is too low. It is only after Ci teacher acquires
several years of teaching experience that he really becomes adept at his job
and it is unfortunate if the students have to lose the benefit of his ex-
perience by reason of an und~y ear.ly age of retirement. However, it is not
for the Court to prescribe the correct age of retirement but that is a policy C
function requiring considerable expertise which_can properly be done by
. the State Government or the State Legislature or the Universities con-
cerned. We hope that some time in near future, the State Government will
be able to consider the question and determine the age of retirement as it
best thinks fit.

N.P.V. Appeals and petitions disposed of.