P VISWESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a lecturer in Sree Konaseema Bhanoji Ramars College, Amalapuram, East Godavari District Respondents 4 and 5 are the Correspondent and the Principal of the said college. The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus declaring that the proceedings of respondents 4 and 5 dt.29-9-89 as illegal and for a further declaration that he is entitled to continue in service tin he attains the age of 60 years together with pay and allowances and other benefits such as, leave, special leave etc., and also for a further declaration that the petitioner is entitled to pension gratuity and all other financial benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he joined the College of the 4th respondent as Tutor on 22-8-68 and that he is presently working as a lecturer. His contention is that he is entitled to continue in service until he completes the age of sixty years. The date of birth of the plaintiff is 1-12-81 and he is entitled to be in service till 30-11-91 respondents 4 and 5 issued the proceedings dt.29-9-89 seeking to retire the petitioner from service on his attaining the age of 58 years by the afternoon of 30-11-89. The contention of the petitioner is mat the age of superannuation of teachers working in the affiliated colleges according to the Osmania University and other Universities Art is 60 yean. The petitioner basis his claim on a series of decisions of this Court

(3.) The second respondent Director of Higher Education filed a counter stating that there was an agreement between the management and the teachers working in un-aided colleges affiliated to the respective Universities with regard to the age of retirement; that as per the agreement the age of retirement of teaching staff was 60 years; and that the said term is purely contractual, entered into between the management and the teaching staff and the Government who is not a parry to the correct is not bound by the agreement as there is no privity of contract between the Government and the teaching staff. It was admitted that the age of retirement as per the University Rules was 60 years and mat the teachers were continued till they attained the age of 60 years. The Government issued G.O.Ms. No584 Education dt.25-5-70 reducing the age of retirement of teachers working in private aided colleges from 60 years to 55 years and it was clarified that no grant would be given to any post of teachers who continued beyond the age of 55 years. Later, the Universities Acts were amended and the Government was empowered to make rules relating to service a conditions of the staff consequently the Government issued orders reducing the age of superannuation to 55 years in exercise of the powers conferred by the amendments. In fact, there is no rule or Government Order according to which the teaching staff in the affiliated colleges should continue till the age of 60 years. Subsequently by G.O.No.36 dt.19-1-85 the Government determined the age of retirement as 58 years and the petitioner is bound to retire from service on his attaining the age of 58 years. Therefore the 2nd respondent contends that the impugned order is valid. Referring to the judgment of this Court in W.P. Nos.1890/76 dtl5-9-77 it is stated in the counter that an appeal is pending in the Supreme Court against the said judgment It was further stated that the petitioner who exercised option in terms of G.O.Ms. No.144 Education is being allowed pensionary benefits, as per the A.P. Liberalised Pension Rules.