A VENKATA RATNAM Vs. NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined Andhra University as a Supervisor on 23-6-1967 after obtaining the academic qualification of a Diploma in Civil Engineering. On appointment he was posted at the Andhra University Post Graduate Centre, Nallapadu, Guntur where he reported for duty on 23-6-1967. He continued to work at the P.G. Centre. Subsequently, by the Nagarjuna University Act, 1976 (A.P. Act No.43 of 1976) (for short 'the 1976 Act'), the Post Graduate Centre, Nallapadu, Guntur was upgraded as the Nagarjuna University and all the employees serving in the Post Graduate Centre, Nallapadu, Guntur became the employees of the Nagarjuna University. This Act came into force with effect from 17-8-1976. The petitioner was promoted as a Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 21-3-1980. While so, by the impugned Memorandum dt.27-12-2000 of the 1st respondent, the petitioner was intimated that he would retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-6-2001. Contending that he is entitled to continue in service until he attains the age of 60 years i.e., upto 30-6-2003 and seeking appropriate relief in this behalf, the writ petition is filed.

(2.) Relief is claimed in this writ petition on the basis of a plurality of contentions. Firstly, it is asserted, having regard to the provisions of Section 39(1) of A.P. Universities Act, 1991 (for short 'the 1991 Act'), the conditions of service of every salaried officer and teacher of University governed by the provisions of the 1991 Act shall as far as be uniform. The contention, in specie, is that as the age of superannuation of teaching staff of the Universities in the State is 60 years and as there is no demonstrable difficulty or impracticability in having a uniform age of superannuation for non-teaching staff also on par with the age of superannuation of teaching staff, the non-teaching staff to which category the petitioner belongs are also entitled to superannuate at the age of 60 years. On behalf of the petitioner reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Osmania University, Hyderabad v. Muthurangam which had approved the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Osmania University, Hyderabad v. Muthurangam . The decision of the Division Bench of this Court as affirmed by the Supreme Court was in respect of non- teaching employees of the 1st respondent University where on an interpretation of the provisions of Section 38 (1) of the Osmania Universities Act, 1959 which are ipsissima verba the provisions of Section 39 (1) of the 1991 Act, the Supreme Court while holding that for demonstrable reasons, Universities are at liberty to have different conditions of service for teaching and non-teaching employees, nevertheless held that as the respondent University could not establish any germane reasons for having different ages of superannuation for teaching and non-teaching employees, such classification amounts to hostile discrimination and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court ordaining the University to have a uniform age for both teaching and non-teaching employees suffers from no vice or infirmity warranting interference by the Supreme Court.

(3.) Sri T.S. Harinath, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that there are statutory provisions and factual circumstances which were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court and had those been brought to its notice, the Supreme Court may not have affirmed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court which had ordered maintenance of identical age of superannuation for teaching and non- teaching employees. In the considered view of this Court, the litigative trajectory in respect of the non-teaching employees of the Osmania University nor the decision either of this Court or of the Supreme Court rendered in the dispute relating to the age of superannuation of non-teaching employees of Osmania University or for that matter the Andhra University is relevant in the factual circumstances of this writ petition. Therefore for the reasons set out in the succeeding paragraphs, I am not inclined to adjudicate upon the possible consequences of the ratio of the Division Bench of this Court or of the Supreme Court referred to above.