Supreme Court Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Ravinder Bhat dealt with a Civil Appeal from High Court of Kerala titled P. Gopinathan Pillai v. University of Kerala pertaining to Service Dispute as to Retirement Age of the Appellant.
Brief Facts-
The appellant was appointed as Project Officer in the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension ie "CACEE". The appellant joined at the CACEE with effect from 26.12.1989. By letter dated 01.02.1990 of the Deputy Registrar of the University of Kerala, University accorded sanction to the appointment of the appellant as Project Officer against the post at the CACEE. The University of Kerala has also implemented the University Grants Commission (UGC) scale of pay to the CACEE staff. The appellant was also given the UGC pay scale. The Centre has issued various certificates to the appellant that he has been teaching various courses like the Post Graduate Diploma etc. On 07.12.2012, the appellant was promoted as Assistant Director in the CACEE. The University Grants Commission revised the scale of pay of the CACEE at par i.e. Director, Assistant Director and Project Officer corresponding to the pay scale of Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Reader, Lecturer. Writ Petition (C) No.12179 of 2016 was filed by the appellant before the High Court of Kerala seeking a declaration that the appellant is a Teacher of the University of Kerala and entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years.
Appelant's Case-
The appellant's case was that he cannot be retired at the age of 56 years. The appellant in his writ petition relied on earlier judgments of the Kerala High Court including judgment delivered by the High Court with regard to the post of Director and Assistant Director of CACEE itself. The appellant also filed certificates issued by the Centre to the appellant that he while working in the Centre has been associated with Teaching Research Extension and other activities.
Respondent University's Case-
Respondent took a stand that CACEE in which the appellant was employed is not a Statutory University Department of study and research as defined in the statutes of the University. CACEE is not affiliated to the University. CACEE is one of the many Schemes sponsored by outside funding Agencies like UGC. Initially CACEE was started on a temporary basis as a planned Scheme established by the Government of India for the purpose of eradicating illiteracy in the society and was operative till 31.03.1997. No Agency having come forward to sponsor the Scheme. The Syndicate of the University taking into account the despair of the staff took a view and resolved to restructure CACEE as a Self-Supporting Centre. The normal date of the retirement of the employees of CACEE is 56 years, some of the employees of CACEE who were allowed to continue upto to the age of 60 years wherever there was direction of the High Court in respective cases. The appellant was never appointed on a teaching post rather he was appointed on an administrative post which was a temporary post. The judgments of the Kerala High Court relied by the counsel for the appellant are distinguishable and they were delivered in the facts of each case.
DB of High Court ruled-
The Division Bench proceeded to consider the merits of the controversy and held that the appellant is not a Teacher of the University and is not entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. The writ petition was consequently dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, this appeal has filed by the appellant.
Issue before Supreme Court-
Whether the appellant working as Assistant Director in CACEE was entitled to continue till 60 years of age which was the age of retirement of Teacher of the Kerala University or he was to retire at the age of 56 years.
Supreme Court ruled-
''The Centre i.e. CACEE came to be established on temporary basis as planned Scheme established by the Government of India for the purpose of eradicating illiteracy. The University Grants Commission also funded the Centre and as pleaded in the counter13 affidavit after 31.03.1997 no Agency having come forward to sponsor the Scheme the Syndicate of the University resolved to restructure CACEE as a Self- Supporting Centre. The University has undertaken to render all the Administrative work of CACEE.''
The Centre is not a College within the meaning of Section
2(7) since as per the pleadings of the University, Centre is neither maintained nor affiliated to the University. There are no materials on record also to indicate that the Centre is an institution recognised by the University within the meaning of Section
2(19). It is true that the Centre is being run as a Centre under the administrative control of the University. The definition of Teacher of University in Section
2(28) also refers to a person employed as Teacher in any institution maintained by the University. The High Court in the impugned judgment has held that the appellant was never employed as Teacher hence he is not covered by Section
2(28). From the pleadings on the record and the materials which are brought on the record it is apparent that the appellant is not covered by definition of Teacher or the Teacher of the University under Section
2(27) and
2(28) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. When the appellant does not fulfil the requirement of definition of Teacher or Teacher of University, he cannot claim applicability of Statute 10 of Chapter 3 of the Statutes.
Supreme Court did not find any merit in the appeal which was dismissed accordingly.
Counsel for Appellant - A. Raghunath, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent - Jogy Scaria, Advocate.
Case details - Civil Appeal No.1641 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 26880 of 2016). D/d. 8.4.2020 (PDF File)
Tags :
