Retirement Age for Private Aided College Teachers: Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment

The case of Dr. R.S. Sohane vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others revolves around the retirement age of teachers in private aided colleges in Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether teachers in private aided educational institutions were entitled to an increase in their retirement age from 62 to 65 years, similar to their counterparts in government colleges.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the private college teachers, stating that the benefit of enhanced retirement age must be extended to them. The judgment emphasized the power of the Coordination Committee to amend statutes and held that the State Government could not deny these benefits after having accepted the University Grants Commission (UGC) pay scale recommendations.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Dr. R.S. Sohane, was appointed as a Lecturer in Commerce (later designated as Assistant Professor) on 01.09.1979 at PMB Gujarati College, Indore, which is an affiliated college receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government.

In 1998, the retirement age of government college teachers was increased from 60 to 62 years under the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Second Amendment Act. This benefit was extended to teachers in private aided colleges as well. In 2010, based on the 6th Pay Commission recommendations, the retirement age for government college teachers was further raised to 65 years. However, the same benefit was not extended to teachers in private aided colleges.

The Madhya Pradesh Coordination Committee had passed a resolution on 07.01.2004, recommending that the retirement age of teachers in private aided colleges be kept at par with their government college counterparts. Despite this, the State Government refused to apply the 65-year retirement age to private college teachers, leading to legal disputes.

Legal Issues Considered

• Whether the teachers of private aided colleges were entitled to the increased retirement age of 65 years.
• Whether the Coordination Committee’s resolution had statutory force.
• Whether the State Government could selectively apply the UGC recommendations.
• Whether the High Court erred in denying relief to private college teachers.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Dr. R.S. Sohane & Others)

• The Coordination Committee’s 2004 resolution made it clear that private college teachers should be treated at par with government college teachers.
• The State Government had already extended UGC pay scales to private college teachers, so it could not arbitrarily deny them the enhanced retirement age.
• Private college teachers were performing the same duties as government college teachers and should not be discriminated against.
• The denial of the enhanced retirement age violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh)

• The UGC Regulations were not automatically applicable to state governments unless explicitly adopted.
• The decision to increase the retirement age for government college teachers was a policy matter, and the State had discretion in its implementation.
• The Coordination Committee’s resolution was merely a recommendation and had no binding effect.
• There was no obligation on the State to extend the 65-year retirement age to private college teachers.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the State Government and ruled in favor of private aided college teachers. The Court observed:

“The Coordination Committee has the power to frame, amend, and repeal statutes. The resolution of 07.01.2004 was not a mere recommendation but a statutory amendment that had binding force.”

The Court further stated:

“The State Government, having extended UGC pay scales to private aided college teachers, cannot selectively deny them the benefit of enhanced retirement age. The refusal to do so is arbitrary and discriminatory.”

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

• The Coordination Committee’s resolution on 07.01.2004 was legally binding.
• The State Government could not selectively implement UGC recommendations.
• The retirement age of private aided college teachers must be increased to 65 years, at par with government college teachers.
• The High Court had erred in holding that the Coordination Committee’s resolution was merely advisory.
• The State Government was directed to pay salaries to teachers who continued working beyond 62 years until the new retirement age of 65 years.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s judgment. The State of Madhya Pradesh was directed to implement the 65-year retirement age for private aided college teachers and pay salaries accordingly.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling ensures that private college teachers in Madhya Pradesh receive the same treatment as their government counterparts. It reinforces the binding nature of Coordination Committee resolutions and limits the State Government’s ability to selectively apply UGC recommendations.

The judgment also serves as an important precedent in service matters, emphasizing that once a government accepts UGC pay scales, it must implement all associated benefits, including the retirement age increase.

Petitioner Name: Dr. R.S. Sohane.
Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh & Others.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 07-05-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Dr. R.S. Sohane vs State of Madhya Prad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-05-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category