AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Ramanujam, J.—This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 29-7-1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.15540 of 1999 dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage.
The material facts of the case are as under:
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, the 1st respondent herein, herein after referred to as "the Company", is running several high schools. The petitioner herein was appointed, initially, as a T.G. Assistant in one such school with effect from 19-7-1996. Subsequently, by an order dated 3-1-1998, the company appointed him as Head Master. The said appointment order clearly recites, inter alia, that he will be eligible for other pecuniary benefits as allowed by the Andhra Pradesh State Government for teachers employed in recognised high schools and he will be eligible for usual leave and other privileges in accordance with the company rules in force from time to time.
By a letter dated 22-3-1999 issued by the Chief (Training and Education) of the company, the petitioner was informed that as per the Educational Rules he would be attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years by 30-7-1999 as per the records and, hence, he would be retiring from the Company Educational Institution''s service with effect from the afternoon of 31-7-1999. Challenging the validity of the said letter/notice, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus declaring that he is entitled to remain in service till he attains the age of 60 years on par with the other employees of the company, with all consequential benefits.
Following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.201 of 1995 and Writ Petition Nos.22578 of 1994, 13280 of 1996, 15353 of 1996, 22094 of 1996 and 3504 of 1997, wherein it was held that the teachers, who are in the service of the company are liable to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
Appearing for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner"), Sri D. Linga Rao, contended that: (i) the Division Bench judgment, which was followed by the learned single Judge, was rendered without considering Sections 78-A and 78-B of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short "the Act") and is, therefore, per incuriam and as such cannot operate as a precedent; (ii) the petitioner is entitled to remain in service till he attains the age of 60 years like other employees of the company; (iii) since the petitioner is a Member of Provident Fund Scheme, his age of superannuation should be declared as 60 years; and (iv) the post of Head Master, in which the petitioner is working is not an aided post and it is also a non-pensionable post; therefore, the petitioner is entitled to remain in service till he attains the age of 60 years.
We do not see any merit in any one of the aforesaid contentions. The contention that the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Appeal No.201 of 1995 and Writ Petition No.22578 of 1994 and Batch is per incuriam since the Division Bench has not considered the affect of Sections 78-A and 78-B of the Act is misconceived and wholly untenable. Section 78-A of the Act prescribes the age of superannuation of the staff in aided educational institutions as 58 years. Likewise, Section 78-B of the Act provides for payment of pension to the employees of the private aided junior and degree colleges. The Act did not provide for the age of superannuation of the teachers in the unaided schools. Obviously, that is left to the individual managements.
In the case on hand, the company framed general service rules for teaching and non-teaching staff of high schools and women''s colleges established by the company and brought them into force with effect from 8-6-1978. Rule 2, therefore, stipulates that the retirement age is as per the State Government Rules in force from time to time applicable to the educational institutions. From this it is clear that the company has adopted the provision contained in Section 78-A of the Act stipulating 58 years as the age of superannuation for teaching and non-teaching staff. The Standing Orders issued by the company govern the service conditions of the workmen employed by it. Clause 33 thereof stipulates the age of superannuation of the workmen as 60 years. These Standing Orders have no application to the teaching and non-teaching staff employed by the company in its high schools and women''s colleges. This is clear from the fact that a separate set of rules were framed governing the service conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff employed by the company. Considering all these aspects, it was held by the Division Bench, in the aforementioned case, that the teachers employed by the company are liable to be retired at the age of 58 years. Therefore, it is incorrect to contend that the Division Bench has not considered the effect of Sections 78-A and 78-B of the Act. In our considered view, the said Division Bench judgment is correct and suffers from no infirmity and squarely covers the issues raised by the petitioner in the writ petition.
The second contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is equally untenable. As already noted, the teaching and non-teaching staff employed by the company are not governed by the Standing Orders framed by the company, but are governed by the separate set of rules framed by the company, which are referred to above. Even the order dated 3-1-1978, under which the petitioner was appointed as Head Master, clearly stipulates that he would be eligible for pecuniary benefits as allowed by the Andhra Pradesh State Government for teachers employed in recognised high schools and he would also be eligible for leave and other privileges in accordance with the Government Rules in force from time to time. Undisputedly, the workmen, whose service conditions are governed by the Standing Orders framed by the company, are not eligible for such benefits and privileges. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim that under the Standing Orders of the company he is entitled to remain in service until he attains the age of 60 years. As already noted, the retirement age of the teaching and non-teaching staff employed by the company is 58 years.
The third contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is a member of the Provident Fund Scheme he is entitled to remain in service till he attains the age of 60 years, is wholly unsustainable. Generally, a scheme providing for Provident Fund will never stipulate the age of superannuation. The Counsel for the petitioner could not and did not show any statutory rule or provision stipulating that all members of Provident Fund Scheme are entitled to be in service till they attain 60 years of age.
The fourth and the last contention advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is working in an unaided non-pensionable post, he is entitled to remain in service till he attains 60 years of age, is also equally unsustainable. Except vaguely contending, the Counsel for the petitioner could not and did not refer to any statutory provision in support of his contention. As already noted, the general Service Rules framed by the company govern the service conditions of all the teachers employed by the company. These Rules do not differentiate between the teachers working in aided and unaided posts, for all the teachers the same superannuation age is prescribed.
In our considered view, under the General Rules framed by the company (referred to above) governing the service conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff employed by it in high school and colleges, the petitioner is liable to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years and there is no infirmity in the impugned letter/ notice. Consequently, we find that the learned single Judge is correct in dismissing the writ petition. No other point has been pressed.
The writ appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed; but, in the circumstances, without costs.