M MURUGAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application is taken out by the appellant in W.A.No. 1132 of 2008 and the petitioner in W.P.No. 26484 of 2007.

(2.) The review application arises under the following circumstances. The applicant was employed as Assistant Librarian in the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and was allowed to retire on 30.6.2007 at the age of 60 years on attaining the age of superannuation. On the ground that the age of superannuation for the post of Assistant Librarian was 62 years, he filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent-Institute to permit him to continue in service till he completed the age of 62 years. As the said request was rejected, he filed the writ petition questioning the said order and for consequential directions.

(3.) It was his contention that the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education in their letter dated 30.3.99 clarified that in respect of the employees of the Indian Institutes of Management at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Kolkata, Lucknow, Indore, Calicut and the Indian Institutes of Technology at Mumbai, Kanpur, Kharagpur, Madras, Guwahati, Bangalore, the enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years indicated in the Ministry's letter of even number dated 31.8.98 would be applicable to the Assistant Librarians as well. Later, by another letter dated 22.9.2006, the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India addressed the Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi informing the decision of the Ministry to make uniform the age of superannuation for the Assistant Librarians/College Librarians etc., as 62 years. Referring to that letter, the University Grants Commission in its letter dated 9.10.2006 informed the Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras of the aforesaid decision and intimated that the University Grants Commission has decided that the age of superannuation of the Assistant Librarian/College LIbrarian etc., would henceforth be 62 years. Hence, the applicant contended that his date of superannuation would be on 30.6.2009 and therefore he would be entitled to continue in service till that date. That contention was rejected by the learned single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition. Questioning the same, the applicant preferred writ appeal and canvassed the same points. The Division Bench, having considered the above submission, factually found that the terms and conditions of service of teachers or other staff as provided under Statute 26(g) of the Statutes of the second respondent-Institute, the Board of Governors would alone be competent to amend the terms and conditions of service by amending the Statutes under Section 27(2) of the Act. As per the Statutes, the age of superannuation of Assistant Librarian would be only 60 years. Till such time the Statutes are amended, the applicant cannot claim as a matter of right the date of superannuation at the age of 62 years on the basis of the communication of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, Government of India as well as the University Grants Commission. However, the Division Bench, while disposing the writ appeal, further directed that the Indian Institutes of Technology, Madras should reconsider the question of enhancement of the age of superannuation of the existing Assistant Librarian, etc., in the light of the recommendations made by the Government of India and suggested by the University Grants Commission.