AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Six Petitioners working as teachers at Obera Inter College, Obera, district Sonbhadra (hereinafter referred to as "College" in short) have approached this Court against the Respondents complaining against their action of retiring the Petitioners at the age of 58 years, through, as contended by the Petitioners, they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 62 years. Consequently, notice dated 12.1.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy General Manager, U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.R.V.U.N.L." in short), working as manager of the college informing the Petitioners that they would retire on 30.6.2004 on attaining the age of 58 years has been challenged in this petition.
The facts in brief giving rise to the present writ petition are that the college was established as a Government school by irrigation department of the State Government, but after establishment of Thermal Generation Units at Obera, the aforesaid institution was taken over by U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.S.E.B." in short) sometimes in the year 1969 and since thereafter, is being run by the management, who are the officers of the Obera Thermal Power Station, which earlier was owned by U.P.S.E.B. and since 14.1.2004, by U.P.R.V.U.N.L. The college is a duly recognized educational institution by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1921) and the Petitioners are employed as teachers in the college having been appointed on 1.7.1969, 9.8.1972, 25.6.1967, 1.9.1971 and 1.8.1968, respectively. Though as per the Petitioners, the conditions of service of the teachers of the college are governed by the regulation framed under the Act of 1921, wherein the age of retirement was earlier 60 years and now 62 years, but the college management, are acting under the impression that the Petitioner are governed by the provisions applicable to the employees of erstwhile U.P.S.E.B. framed u/s 79(C) of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1948), wherein the age of retirement is 58 years and, therefore, have proceeded to retire them on attaining the age of 58 years, which, according to the Petitioners, is illegal, since, they are governed by the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 and are entitled to continue till they attain the age of 62 years.
On behalf of the Respondents, counter-affidavit has been filed stating that earlier the college was being managed by the U.P.S.E.B. and now by U.P.R.V.U.N.L. The employees of the college are governed by the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Shiksha Seva Nimavali, 1995, framed by erstwhile U.P.S.E.B. u/s 79(C) of Act of 1948, wherein the age of retirement is 58 years and, therefore, the Petitioners have rightly been sought to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. It has also been stated that the Board for its employees had statutory power to frame regulations with respect to recruitment conditions of service, which includes the teachers and other staff of an educational institution of the U.P.S.E.B. and statutory provisions having been made u/s 79(c) of the Act of 1948, the same cannot be made subservient to the provisions of the State Act like Act of 1921 or the regulations framed thereunder and, therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners upon Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations, under the Act of 1921 is clearly misplaced and provisions made under the Act of 1948 would override the provisions of Act of 1921.
The Petitioners have also filed a supplementary affidavit as well as rejoinder-affidavit wherein besides reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition, it has also been stressed that the college in question is receiving grant-in-aid under the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Others Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as"Act of 1971" in short), as is apparent from the letter dated 30.1.2006, issued by the finance controller, Directorate of Education, U.P., Allahabad addressed to District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and Sonbhadra communicating sanction of grant of Rs. 48,20,830 for the college under the Act of 1971. Further, a copy of the amendment notification dated 6.1.2005, has been appended, whereby Regulation 21 Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 has been amended by substitution altering the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years.
Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra for the Respondents.
Though the Respondents have taken a general stand that the regulations framed under the Act of 1921 are not at all applicable to the Petitioners and they are governed by the statutory provisions framed by the erstwhile U.P.S.E.B. in exercise of its power u/s 79(C) of the Act of 1948, but it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties that this question has already been decided in a number of cases, wherein U.P.S.E.B. and U.P.R.V.U.N.L. were also parties, holding that the conditions of service of the teachers working in the recognized institution managed by the U.P.S.E.B. or U.P.R.V.U.N.L. would be governed by the regulations framed under Act of 1921 and not under the regulations framed under Act of 1948. Some of the judgments are also on record, namely, Writ Petition No. 24222 of 1999, Daroga Singh and Ors. v. U.P.S.E.B. and others, decided on 4.10.2002. Writ Petition No. 35792 of 1996 Smt. Shaila Garg v. U.P.S.E.B. and another, and other connected matter decided on 30.5.1997 and Writ Petition No. 9244 of 1995 Dr. Ravindra Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, Of course, all the judgments have been rendered by Hon''ble single Judges and it is informed by Sri Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the Respondents, that in many matters, special appeals have been filed, which are pending before this Court, but the judgments of the Hon''ble single Judges holding that the regulations framed under the Act of 1921 are applicable to the teachers of the recognized college of erstwhile U.P.S.E.B. have not been stayed in the pending special appeals. The nature of the interim orders passed in special appeal are that the beneficiaries in case lose the matters in special appeals will have to refund the entire salary to the employers for the period subsequent to the date, when they attain the age of 58 years. Thus, the situation, as it stand today, is that all the judgments of the Hon''ble single Judges have precedential value and are binding on all the coordinate Benches. I also do not find any reason to take different view and, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that for the purpose of age of retirement, the provisions under Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 will govern the age of retirement of the Petitioners.
However, the matter does not rest here, since the present case has a further complication, which has arisen on account of amendment of Regulation 21, Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 enhancing the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years. Ordinarily, since the amendment made by the notification dated 6.1.2005, substituting existing Regulation 21 of Chapter III by a new one, also would have governed by the same principle as already declared in the various judgments of this Court holding the aforesaid Regulation to be applicable to the employees of the recognized college of the Respondents, but the learned Counsel for the Respondents have tried to persuade this Court not to follow the aforesaid principle for the purpose of amended Regulation 21 in the case in hand.
Sri Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the Respondents, drew attention of the Court to the Government order dated 4.2.2004 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Principal Secretary, U.P. Government addressed to the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Allahabad and Lucknow communicating its decision to extend the age of retirement of the teachers working on the post created by the State Government in non-Government-aided institutions and, therefore, conveyed its approval for amendment of the Regulation increasing the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years for such teachers. He further drew attention of the Court to the letter dated 6.1.2005, appended to the notification amending Regulation 21 which also provides that it pertains to the alteration in age of retirement of the teachers working in non-Government aided secondary institutions. Relying upon the aforesaid Government order and letter, Sri Mehrotra proceeded to contend that the approval of the Government to amend regulation pertaining to age of retirement of teachers was restricted to the category of only such teachers, who were working against the posts created by the State Government in non-Government aided institutions and therefore, the aforesaid amendment is not applicable to all the recognized institutions whether aided or unaided. He further submitted that the college in question managed by the U.P.S.E.B. and now U.P.R.V.U.N.L. is a non-Government unaided institution and, therefore the aforesaid amendment would have no application to the college of the Respondents. To buttress his submission, Sri Mehrotra relied upon the principles of statutory interpretation permitting external aid, i.e., statement of objects and reasons, notings, attending circumstances preceding the amendments etc. and placed reliance on the following law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court:
(1) AIR 1930 120 (Privy Council)
(2) Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others,
(3) D.N. Banerji Vs. P.R. Mukherjee and Others,
(4) Hariprasad Shivshanker Shukla and Anr. v. A. D. Divelkar and others, AIR 1957 SC 121.
(5) R.L. Arora Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,
(6) Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors,
On the contrary, Sri Vinod Sinha disputing the aforesaid submission, vehemently contended that the amendment of Regulation 21 is nothing but a substitution of the existing provision by a new one. A bare reading of amended Regulation 21 does not show that it is applicable to a limited category of the teachers. Therefore, he submits that the Petitioners are entitled to be governed by the amended Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act to 1921.
The short controversy, therefore, involved in the case as is whether Regulation 21, Chapter III as amended by notification dated 6.1.2005, is applicable to all the categories of recognized institution or not including the college run by the Respondents.
Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to reproduce Regulation 21,Chapter III of the Regulations as it was prior to its amendment vide notification dated 6.1.2005.
Superannuation age of Principal, Headmaster, Teacher and other employees, would be 60 years. If abovesaid superannuation age of any Principal, Headmaster and Teacher falls on any date in between 2nd July and 30th June, except in the conditions when he himself, before two months of the date of superannuation, furnishes in writing the information for not seeking extension of service, extension of service up to 30th June shall be deemed to be conferred on him so that after summer vacation, substitute can be arranged in the month of July. In addition to this , extension of service could be granted only in such special cases, which may be decided by the State Government.
If date of superannuation of any clerk of fourth class employee falls in the middle of any month, his extension of service would be deemed to be given up to the last date of that month. But if the date of appointment of any employee falls on the first date of any month, he shall be retired on the last date of the preceding month.
The State Government issued order dated 4.2.2004, communicating its approval for amendment of the regulation permitting enhancement in the age of retirement of teachers from 60 to 62 years, but in the aforesaid Government order, it clearly mentions that the said decision has been taken in respect to the teachers working on the post created by the State Government in non-Government aided secondary educational institutions. It also direct that all Government orders issued in the past shall be deemed to be amended to the extent as provided in the aforesaid Government order and also directed the Director of Education to take action for amendment of Regulation 21 under Intermediate Education Act, 1921, within 30 days from the date of issuance of the aforesaid Government order. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract of the Government order:
It appears that subsequently there was some further correspondence between the Government and Education Department whereafter vide notification dated 6.1.2005, though in the subject it mentions about amendment in the age of retirement of teachers of non-Government aided institution, but in the contents part of the notification, it states that the Hon''ble Governor has approved the amendment of Regulation 21, Chapter III framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 in the manner as contained in the Annexure to the said notification and the amended Regulation 21 reads as under:
A bare perusal of Regulation 21 as amended vide notification dated 6.1.2005 does not warrant any restricted application to the category of teachers. A plain reading of Regulation 21 as amended would show that all the teachers and principals, who were liable to retire at the age of 58 years would now retire at the age of 60 years and those who were to retire at the age of 60 years would now retire at the age of 62 years and would be entitled for all the retiral benefits, accordingly. It also provides that if the teachers and principals retire on a date between 2nd July to 30th June and have not expressed their desire against extension, would continue till 30th June i.e. end of the session. Regulation 21 amended by the notification dated 6.1.2005, substituted the existing Regulation 21. It is not disputed that Regulation 21 as it stood prior to notification dated 6.1.2005 was applicable to all teachers and principals of recognized institutions whether aided or unaided. After substitution of Regulation 21 vide notification dated 6.1.2005, there is no other provision in respect to superannuation age of principals, head masters and teachers of the recognized institutions whether aided or unaided. The very first obstacle in accepting the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents is that if the interpretation as suggested by him is followed, it would result as if now, on and after 6.1.2005, there is no provision or regulation framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 providing age of superannuation of Principals, Head Masters, Teachers and other employees of recognized unaided institutions. I do not find any reason, therefore, to accept a construction which not only restrict the plain and simple application of the statute but also create vacuum leaving no provision in respect to age of retirement of teachers of recognized, unaided non-Government institutions relegating them to the mercy of the management, particularly, when there is no compulsion to take such a view from a bare reading of statute itself.
The cardinal rule of construction is to find out the intention of the Legislature in the words used by the Legislature itself. The Court, in order to find out the intention of the statute framing authority must look into the statute itself without any assistance from any other external factor unless there is some doubt or ambiguity in the construction of the statute itself. It would be appropriate to remind in the words of Lord Brougham in Robert Wigram Crawford v. Richard Spooner, 4 MIA 179 (187) . "If the Legislature did intend that which it has not expressed clearly; much more, if the Legislature intended some thing very different; if the Legislature intended pretty nearly the opposite of what is said, it is not for Judges to invent something, which they do not meet within the words of the text (aiding their construction of the text always, of course, by the contest).
The Apex Court in Sardar Gurmej Singh Vs. Sardar Partap Singh Kairon, also held that "the Courts are not to busy themselves with ''supposed intention'' or with ''the policy underlying the statute. But must construe the statute from plain meaning of the words used therein. In Aron Soloman v. A. Soloman and Co. Ltd., (1897) AC 22 , Lord Watson observed-"In a court of law or equity, what the Legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication." The aforesaid passage has been quoted with approval by the Apex Court in R.L. Arora Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Management Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. S.S. Railway Workers'' Union, Hansraj Gordhandas Vs. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Surat and Others, Shri Umed Vs. Raj Singh and Others, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. Super Cotton Bowl Refilling Works, State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. G.S. Dall and Flour Mills and Others, and Harbhajan Singh Vs. Press Council of India and Others,
No doubt, in case of any doubt, if it arises from a bare reading of statute about the correct intention of the Legislature or if the plain meaning of the statute results in some such consequences, which the Legislature could not have intended or for any other similar reason, it is permissible to look for external aid, namely, statement of objects and reason, attending circumstances before enactment of the statute and other relevant materials, but where there is no ambiguity at all, whatsoever, and the meaning of the statute is clear and simple, there is no requirement of any such assistance. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to restrict the normal extent and application of the statute by referring to attending circumstances or notings or executive letters, which are claimed to be the reason for such enactment.
The rules of interpretation are not rules of laws and are not to be followed like the rules enacted by Legislature in an Interpretation Act as observed by the Apex Court in Superintendent and Legal Remembrancer, State of West Bengal Vs. Corporation of Calcutta, The principles for interpretation serve only as a guide.
In all the case relied by learned Counsel for the Respondents, the Courts have clearly said that in case of doubt or ambiguity, the external aid may be looked into and the intention of the Legislature may be discerned therefrom. However, in none of the case, it has been stated that if the statute is otherwise clear from a plain and simple reading thereof, still by taking recourse to external material, its extent and application should be or can be narrowed down.
Regulation 21, Chapter III as it enacted provided the age of superannuation of the teachers and staff of a recognized institution whether aided or unaided. Earlier the age of retirement was 58 years, which was subsequently enhanced to 60 years. But notification dated 6.1.2005, the entire Regulation 21, Chapter III has been amended by substitution and the age of superannuation has been increased to 62 years. It may be that for increasing the age of superannuation, the State Government might have impelled to increase the age by taking into account the case of recognized aided non-Government institutions, but in the actual amendment made in the Regulation, it has not restricted the amended provision to a particular set of teachers or staff, but the entire provision has been amended without using any word suggestive restricted application.
As noticed above, the amendment by substitution has the effect of wiping out the earlier Regulation 21, Chapter III from statute and adding a new provision. Admittedly, the earlier provision prescribed age of retirement for teachers and other staff of all recognized institution whether aided or unaided. If the manner in which learned Counsel for the Respondents has suggested the interpretation of amended Regulation 21 of Chapter III is accepted, it would result as if there is no age of retirement for the teachers and staff of recognized unaided institutions meaning thereby either they would continue to serve irrespective of any restriction of age of retirement or their continuance in service would depend upon the sweet will of the management. Reason for omitting statutory provision providing age of retirement of recognized unaided institution is also not understandable. The Court has no reason to believe that the State Government intended not to provide any age of retirement for the staff of recognized unaided non-Government institutions. It is well-settled that a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court. There is no presumption that a casus omissus exists and language permitting the Court should avoid creating a casus omissus where there is none. It would be appropriate to recollect the observations of Devlin,L.J. in Gladstone v. Bower, (1960) 3 All ER 353 (CA)-"The Court will always allow the intention of a statute to override the defects of working but the Court''s ability to do so is limited by recognized canons of interpretation. The Court may, for example, prefer an alternative construction which is less well fitted to the words but better fitted to the intention of the Act. But here, there is no alternative construction; it is simple a case of something being overlooked. We cannot legislate for casus omissus..."
The Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, , quoted with approval the following observation of Lord Simonds in the case of Magor and St. Mellons R.D.C. v. Newport Corporation, (1951) 2 All ER 839 , "The duty of the Court is to interpret the words that the Legislature has used. Those words may be ambiguous, but, even if they are, the power and duty of the Court to travel outside them on a voyage of discovery are strictly limited."
It would be appropriate at this stage to remind another principle that though a Court cannot supply a real casus omissus, it is equally evident that it should not so interpret a statute as to create casus omissus when there is really none. Therefore, the general proposition laid down in the various judgments sought to be relied by the learned Counsel for the Respondents admits no doubt, but, in my view, the said principles have no application in the case in hand, since, the Regulation 21, Chapter III as amended by notification dated 6.1.2005 admits no ambiguity, doubt etc. and, therefore, it does not require any external aid for interpretation for the extent of its application to the concerned persons.
In this view of the matter, I am clearly of the view that Regulation 21, Chapter III as amended by notification dated 6.1.2005 is applicable to Teachers, Principals and Head Masters of all recognized institutions whether aided or unaided and otherwise contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents is, therefore, rejected.
Once it is found that Regulation 21, Chapter III as amended by notification dated 6.1.2005 is applicable to a recognized unaided non-Government institution, rest of the matter is already covered by the various earlier judgments of this Court providing that the teachers of recognized educational institutions of the Respondents are also governed by the regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 including provision regarding age of retirement, subject, of course, to the decisions of the Court in the pending special appeals.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 12.1.2004, communicating the Petitioners regarding their retirement on attaining the age of 58 years is quashed and the Respondents are directed to permit the Petitioners to continue in service in accordance with Regulation 21 Chapter III of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as amended by notification dated 6.1.2005.
There shall be no order as to costs.