Retirement Age of University Staff: Supreme Court Upholds Kerala High Court Verdict

The case of P. Gopinathan Pillai vs. University of Kerala & Others revolved around the retirement age of an Assistant Director at the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension (CACEE). The dispute arose when the appellant claimed that he was entitled to continue in service until the age of 60, as per the provisions applicable to university teachers. However, the University of Kerala maintained that his retirement age was 56, as applicable to non-teaching staff. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Kerala High Court’s ruling that the appellant was not a ‘teacher’ under the Kerala University Act and was thus not entitled to an extended retirement age.

Background of the Case

The appellant, P. Gopinathan Pillai, was appointed as a Project Officer at CACEE on 26.12.1989. His appointment was sanctioned by the University of Kerala through a letter dated 01.02.1990. Over the years, he was promoted to the position of Assistant Director on 07.12.2012. The appellant contended that since the University of Kerala had implemented the University Grants Commission (UGC) pay scale for CACEE staff, and since he was engaged in teaching activities, he should be treated as a university teacher and allowed to retire at 60 instead of 56.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant could be considered a ‘teacher’ under Sections 2(27) and 2(28) of the Kerala University Act, 1974.
• Whether CACEE was an institution recognized and maintained by the university.
• Whether the retirement age applicable to university teachers extended to staff members of CACEE.

Petitioner’s Arguments (P. Gopinathan Pillai)

• “The University of Kerala placed the appellant in the senior scale for lecturers under the UGC Scheme from 24.05.1997, which establishes his status as a university teacher.”
• “UGC had previously directed that CACEE staff be treated at par with teaching staff in other university faculties.”
• “Certificates issued by CACEE confirm that the appellant was involved in teaching various courses such as the Post Graduate Diploma program, making him eligible for the retirement benefits applicable to university teachers.”
• “The Kerala High Court had previously ruled in favor of similarly placed individuals, allowing them to continue service until 60 years of age.”

Respondent’s Arguments (University of Kerala)

• “CACEE is not a statutory department of the University of Kerala, nor is it affiliated or recognized as a teaching institution under the Kerala University Act, 1974.”
• “The center was initially established as a temporary scheme under the Government of India’s literacy program and later restructured as a self-financing center.”
• “The appellant was appointed to an administrative position and was never formally appointed as a teacher within the meaning of Sections 2(27) and 2(28) of the Kerala University Act.”
• “The appellant’s reliance on past High Court decisions is misplaced, as those cases involved individuals with clear academic credentials and teaching designations.”

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the legal framework under the Kerala University Act and the nature of CACEE as an institution. The key observations were:

• “The definition of ‘teacher’ under Section 2(27) requires an individual to be imparting instruction in a recognized college or institution affiliated with the university, which is not the case here.”
• “The definition of ‘teacher of the university’ under Section 2(28) applies only to those employed in institutions maintained by the university, whereas CACEE is a self-financing center that was not originally created under university statutes.”
• “Even though the appellant may have been involved in instructional activities, this does not automatically qualify him as a university teacher within the statutory framework.”
• “The appellant was never officially appointed to a teaching position by the university’s statutory bodies, making his claim for an extended retirement age untenable.”

The Court stated, “A person cannot be deemed to be a teacher of the university merely by virtue of engaging in some teaching activities. The employment must be in an institution officially recognized and maintained by the university.”

Final Judgment

Based on its findings, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled:

• The appellant was not a teacher under Sections 2(27) and 2(28) of the Kerala University Act.
• He was correctly retired at the age of 56, as per the rules applicable to non-teaching staff.
• Previous High Court rulings in favor of similarly placed employees were not applicable to the appellant’s case.
• Since CACEE was not a university-maintained institution, its employees could not claim parity with university teachers.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications for university staff and self-financing institutions:

• Employees of centers and schemes not recognized under university statutes cannot claim benefits extended to university teachers.
• Teaching activities alone do not suffice to establish a person’s status as a university teacher unless statutory conditions are met.
• Retirement age disputes must be resolved within the framework of the governing laws and not based on administrative interpretations.
• The judgment clarifies that self-financing centers cannot be equated with university departments unless explicitly recognized.

The decision reinforces the importance of statutory definitions in determining employment rights and benefits in university-affiliated institutions.

Petitioner Name: P. Gopinathan Pillai.
Respondent Name: University of Kerala & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Kerala.
Judgment Date: 08-04-2020.

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

Download Judgment: P. Gopinathan Pillai vs University of Kerala Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-04-2020.pdf