Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
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
uniformly fixed at 58 years.
Dismissing the petition, this Court,
HELD: 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. [838F]
JUDGMENT:
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.
837
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
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.
838
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
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.
839