LAWS(APH)-1989-4-1

RAMAMOHANA RAO Vs. A P AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

Decided On April 28, 1989
P.S.RAMAMOLIANA RAO Appellant
V/S
A.P.AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been referred to a Bench by the orders of a learned Single Judge dated 1st September, 1988. The controversy involved is whether the petitioner who is working as a Physical Director in the service of the A.P. Agricultural University and working in the college of Veterinary Sciences, Tirupati, is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years in accordance with the regulations of the University. We have heard the counsel for the parties at some length.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 4-8-1956 as a Physical Director in the Government College at Bapatla Subsequently on the formation of A.P. Agricultural University under the Act of the State Legislature (Act 24 of 1963), this college was transferred by the Government to the University along with the staff members working in this college in the year 1969. Subsequently, the petitioner was given an option and he chose to come over to the University Service. The petitioner's pay was fixed in the fourth plan U.G.C. scale. The teaching staff in the University retire on superannuation on their attaining the age of 60 years while the non-teaching staff except certain categories like attenders etc., retire at the age of 58 years. According to the petitioner, the Physical Director is a teacher and therefore, in accordance with the regulations applicable to the teachers, he is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years.

(3.) The Case of the University is that a Physical Director is not a teacher and being a member of the non-teaching staff, he has to retire on reaching the age of 58 years in accordance with the regulations of the University. The petitioner's date.of birth is 9-8-1930 and he has already attained the age of 58 years. But by virtue of interloculatory orders granted in the W.P.M.P. which was presented on 19-8-1988 he is still continuing in service. The University has filed a petition to vacate the stay and also an additional affidavit in opposition to the Writ Petition and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit.