H G MODI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioners, who were employees of the Government Engineering Colleges of State of Gujarat. At the relevant point of time, all the petitioners were in service and particulars regarding service of the petitioners are provided as per the chart annexed at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 6 are Assistant Professor, while petitioner Nos.2 and 5 are Professors and petitioner No.4 is the Principal. In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :

(2.) Thus, the grievance of the petitioners against the Resolution issued by the Education Department of State of Gujarat dated 26.5.1999 by which cut-off line of granting benefit of age of superannuation to the persons like the petitioners is fixed at 62 years, but the effect of enhanced age to be given from the date of the said GR i.e. 26.5.1999. The State Government has conferred the benefits of higher and revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 by the same GR dated 26.5.1999 on par with other teachers of the colleges and universities, even receiving financial aids from the Government, but the petitioners are deprived of benefit of superannuation by fixing the cut-off line arbitrarily i.e. 26.5.1999, though they are serving in the Government colleges.

(3.) Shri K.B.Pujara, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has mainly argued that pay scale and age of superannuation of the petitioners are governed by the Circulars or Resolutions issued by the Education Department of the State Government and such G.R and Circulars are normally based on the recommendations made by the AICTE, a statutory autonomous body constituted under All India Council for Technical Education Act,1987. The above body also takes into consideration the decision taken by the Ministry of Human Resources (Department of Education) of the Government of India and thus, the service conditions of the petitioners are based on the norms as fixed by AICTE and Department of Education of State of Gujarat. Thus, according to Shri Pujara, learned advocate, issuance of letter by the Ministry of Human Resources dated 31.7.1998 and communication of the above letter addressed by AICTE to all the Secretaries of the State of Gujarat on 2.9.1998 and 9.10.1998 confer benefits of enhanced age of superannuation and revised pay scale to the petitioners and State Government cannot deprive the petitioners by fixing the cut-off date as laid down in GR dated 26.5.1999, particularly when the benefits of age of superannuation of 62 years were given by the Education Department of the State of Gujarat to other teachers and employees of the Colleges and Universities of non-Government as well as affiliated colleges, of revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and/or age of superannuation w.e.f. 7.9.1998. According to Shri Pujara, learned advocate, the above decision of the authority is directly against the decision of the Apex Court in case of D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 and other decisions which followed the ratio of the above decision and, therefore, unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and require to be quashed and set aside in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.