Manipur High Court
Date: 2021.12.23 vs The State Of Manipur on 22 December, 2021
1
JOHN
TELEN KOM IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Digitally signed by
JOHN TELEN KOM WP(C) No.107 of 2020
Date: 2021.12.23
13:26:43 +05'30'
Kangjam Chaoba Singh, aged about 59 years, s/o (L)
Kangjam Yaima Singh, resident of Langthabal
Mantrikhong Makha Leikai, PO Canchipur, P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795003.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented through the
Commissioner (Higher & Technical Education),
Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, Imphal,
Manipur-795001.
2. The Commissioner (Higher & Technical Education),
Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, Imphal,
Manipur-795001.
3. The Controller of Technical Education, Government of
Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur-795001.
4. The Princiapal Secretary/Commissioner, Department of
Personnel, Government of Manipur, Manipur
Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur-795001.
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner : RK. Deepak, Adv.
For the Respondents : Th. Sukumar, GA.
Date of hearing & reserved : 10.11.2021
Date of Judgment & Order : 22.12.2021.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the
impugned order dated 28.2.2018 issued by the Government of Manipur to
the extent the age of retirement on superannuation of the Librarians of the
Government Polytechnic, Manipur is fixed at 60 years and to direct the
respondents to initiate the process for enhancing the age of retirement on
superannuation of the Librarians of the Government Polytechnic, Manipur to
62 years.
[2] The case of the petitioner is that after serving 36 long years, he
was working as Librarian (Selection Grade) in Government Polytechnic,
Takyelpat, Imphal. The AICTE, in its Notification of 1999, enhanced the age
of retirement on superannuation of teachers and other non-teaching staff,
including the Librarians of the Government Polytechnic Institutions, to 62
years. The subsequent notification/regulation of AICTE enhances the age of
superannuation of teachers to 65 years while refusing to do so in the case of
Librarians. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of the enhancement of the
age of retirement of Librarians by the State Government, a representation
dated 2.12.2013 was submitted to the Commissioner (Higher and Technical
Education) requesting to enhance the age of superannuation of the
Librarians of the Government Polytechnic to 62 years. However, no response
has come till date. It is averred that vide the impugned order dated 28.2.2018,
the State Government increased the age of retirement of teachers of
Government Colleges/Government Polytechnic from 62 to 65 years while
fixing the age of retirement age in respect of
Librarians/Demonstrators/Tutors of the State Government Colleges and
Librarians of the Government Polytechnic as 60 years. Being aggrieved by
the impugned order, the petitioner has submitted a representation on
25.7.2019 to the Commissioner (Higher and Technical Education) requesting
to enhance the age of superannuation of the Librarians of the Government
Polytechnic to 62 years as per the recommendations of the AICTE. However,
no response has come from the Government. Hence, the petitioner has filed
the present writ petition.
[3] Resisting the writ petition, the respondents 1 and 2 filed
affidavit-in-opposition stating that raising of age of retirement on
superannuation for teachers who are involved in classroom teaching from 60
to 62 years and further from 62 to 65 years have been done as per the
decision taken by the State Cabinet. However, in respect of
Librarians/Demonstrators/Tutors of the Government College/Government
Polytechnic, no decision has been taken by the State Cabinet for raising the
age of retirement beyond 60 years. As such the age of retirement in respect
of Librarians/Demonstrators/Tutors of the Government College/Government
Polytechnic is 60 years. It is stated that the State Government has not
adopted the relevant provisions of the AICTE or the UGC relating to
enhancement of the age of retirement for both the Government College
Librarians and the Librarians of the Government Polytechnic. In other words,
no decision has been taken by the State Cabinet in this regard. Therefore,
the request of the petitioner in his representation dated 25.7.2019 to enhance
the age of retirement of the Librarians of the Government Polytechnic from
60 to 62 cannot be acceded to.
[4] Heard Dr. R.K. Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned counsel for the State.
[5] Assailing the impugned order dated 28.2.2018, Dr. R.K.
Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no parity in the
service conditions of Librarians of the Government Polytechnic and
Demonstrators/Tutors of the Government College/Government Polytechnic
and that the service conditions of the Librarians are governed by the AICTE
norms while it is not so in the case of Demonstrators/Tutors of the
Government Polytechnics. He would submit that the service conditions of the
Librarians of the Government Polytechnic are governed by AICTE norms,
while those of Librarians of the Government Colleges are governed by UGC
norms and that the service conditions of the Librarians of the Government
College are governed by UGC norms while those of the
Demonstrators/Tutors of the Government College are not governed by UGC
norms and that the Librarians of the Government Polytechnic are on a class
of its own.
[6] Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per
the Notification of the AICTE dated 30.12.1999, the age of superannuation
of Librarians was increased from 60 to 62 years and the age of
superannuation of teachers was increased from 60 to 62 years. The
subsequent, AICTE Regulation 2010 provides age of superannuation of
Librarians was not allowed to increase from 62 to 65 years whereas the age
of superannuation of teachers was increased from 62 to 65 years.
[7] Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after
approval by the Government of India, the AICTE's Notification and
Regulation were circulated to all States, including Manipur, for appropriate
action. By the Office Memorandum dated 17.2.2011, age of superannuation
of teachers of Government Polytechnic was increased from 60 to 62 years
and by the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 28.2.2013, the age of
superannuation of teachers of Government Polytechnic was increased from
62 to 65 years. However, the age of superannuation of Librarians in
Government Polytechnic was kept at 60 years by the impugned order. The
said approach adopted by the State Government is arbitrary and therefore,
the same is liable to be set aside.
[8] Learned counsel next submitted that the Librarians of the
Government Polytechnic are on a different footing as compared to the
Librarians of the State Government Colleges and that the terms and
conditions of service including the age of superannuation of Librarians of the
Government Polytechnic is governed by the AICTE Notification 1999 and the
subsequent Notifications/Regulations. Highlighting Section 12.0 of the
AICTE Notification 1999, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
age of superannuation of Librarians of the Government Polytechnic
Institutions (Diploma) should be 62 years.
[9] It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that by
enhancing the age of superannuation of the Librarians of the Government
Polytechnic from the present 60 years to 62 years, the Government of
Manipur can tap the experience and expertise of a senior Librarian of the
Government Polytechnic for another two years. Since there is at present no
incumbent in the Government Polytechnic, who has the qualification and
experience to become a Librarian of the Government Polytechnic, it makes
legal and practical sense to utilize the experience and expertise of the
petitioner for another two years. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i) National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v.
Dr.K.Kalyana Raman and others, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 81;
(ii) East Coast Railway and another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and
others, (2010) 7 SCC 678; and
(iii) Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others v. All India Council for
Technical Education and others, (2013) 3 SCC 385.
[10] Per contra, Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned counsel for the State
submitted that the State Government does not adopt the recommendations
of the UGC or the AICTE in toto and the said fact has been given judicial
recognition by a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the
common judgment dated 6.5.2016 made in W.A.No.33 of 2015 and other
connected appeals filed by the State, wherein the Division Bench of this
Court opined that in the absence of any decision on the part of the State
Government accepting the recommendation of the UGC Regulations, 2010
for enhancing the age of superannuation of Librarians from 60 to 62 years,
continuance of the respondents therein as Librarians beyond the age of 60
years till they attained the age of 62 years was a mistake on the part of the
State Government and therefore, the respondents therein cannot take
advantage of such a mistake.
[11] Learned counsel further submitted that when the teachers of
the Government Polytechnic have been put on par with the teachers of
Government Colleges, there is no logical reason why the Librarian of the
Government Polytechnic should be treated differently from those Librarians
of the Government Colleges. As such, the claim of the petitioner that the
Librarian of the Government Polytechnic is on a different footing as
compared to the Librarians of the State Government Colleges has no legal
basis. He would submit that the petitioner has no legal right to ask the
Government to adopt the recommendation with regard to enhancement of
the age of retirement of Librarian of the Government Polytechnic beyond 60
years just to accommodate him. Since the impugned order has been passed
considering all aspects, the same warrants no interference.
[12] This Court considered the submissions raised by learned
counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
[13] The grievance of the petitioner is that the State Government
refused to consider the relevant AICTE Rules/Guidelines qua the
enhancement of the age of superannuation of Librarians of the Government
Polytechnic from 60 years to 62 years and therefore, the failure of the
respondent State in not enhancing the age of superannuation of Librarians
of the Government Polytechnic is in violation of the AICTE Notification 1999.
That apart, this is blatant discrimination against the Librarians of the
Government Polytechnic. The case of the petitioner is that the AICTE was
established, inter alia, for regularization and maintenance of norms and
standards in the technical education system throughout the country.
Maintenance of equivalent and analogous norms and standards throughout
the States in India is thus an object of the AICTE. While almost all the States
in India have determined the age of superannuation of Librarians at 62 years,
it is not permissible for the State of Manipur to keep it at 60 years in defiance
of the AICTE Act and Regulations.
[14] On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent State that
AICTE Notification dated 30.12.1999 and the AICTE Pay Scale Service
Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in
Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations, 2010 published on 13.03.2010
with regard to raising the retirement age of Librarians from 60 years to 62
years have not been adopted by the State Government and in fact, raising
of age of the retirement on superannuation for teachers who are involved in
classroom teaching from 60 to 62 years and further from 62 to 65 years have
been done as per the decision taken by the State Cabinet and in respect of
the Librarians, so far no decision has been taken by the State Cabinet for
raising the age of retirement beyond 60 years. As such the age of retirement
in respect of Librarians/Demonstrators/Tutors of the Government
College/Government Polytechnic is 60 years.
[15] It is the specific case of the respondent State that the State
Government does not adopt the recommendations of the UGC or the AICTE
in toto and the same was said so in judicial pronouncement by a Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.33 of 2015 and other connected matters
decided on 06.5.2016.
[16] On a reading of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in W.A.No.33 of 2015, it is seen that challenging the order dated 25.4.2014,
whereby the writ petitioners therein were directed to retire on attaining the
age of 60 years, the writ petitioners have filed writ petitions and the learned
Single Judge, allowed the writ petitions on the ground that the State
Government did not produce any document to show that a decision has been
taken to implement the UGC Regulations 2010 in part or that the State
Government had taken any decision not to implement the prescription of
enhancement of age of superannuation of Librarians from 60 to 62 years
available in the UGC Regulations 2010. Aggrieved by the same, the State
has preferred writ appeals and by a common judgment dated 6.5.2016, the
Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeals and set aside the
judgment of the learned Single Judge.
[17] In paragraph 5, the Division Bench held as under:
"[5] It was contended by the respondents before the learned
Single Judge that UGC Regulations 2010 prescribe the date
of superannuation of College Librarians at 62 years and
consequently both of them were allowed to work as
Librarians till they attained the age of 62 years. Therefore,
there was no reason on the part of the State authorities to
direct their retirement on attaining the age of 60 years.
According to the respondents, the UGC Regulations 2010
have to be accepted in toto and therefore, they were rightly
permitted to work till they attained the age of 62 years. The
appellants contested the proceeding before the learned
Single Judge and took a stand that State Government did not
accept the UGC Regulations 2010 in full and in partial
modification thereof a conscious decision was taken only to
extend the age of retirement of teachers working in the
Government Colleges from 60 to 62 years. So far as the
Librarians are concerned, no decision was taken by the State
Government to enhance the age of superannuation from 60
to 62 years.
Further, stand of the Government before the learned single
Judge was that due to bonafide mistake both the
respondents were allowed to continue even after attaining
the age of 60 years till they attained the age of 62 years and
the said respondents cannot take advantage of such a
mistake on the part of the State Government in permitting
them to continue beyond the age of superannuation as per
FR 56(2)."
[18] Thus, the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court,
is very clear that in the absence of any decision on the part of the State
Government accepting the recommendation of the UGC Regulations 2010
for enhancing the age of superannuation of Librarians from 60 years to 62
years, continuance of the respondents therein as Librarians beyond the age
of 60 years till they attained the age of 62 years was a mistake on the part of
the State Government and therefore, the respondents therein cannot take
advantage of such a mistake. It appears that as against the decision of the
Division Bench, no appeal was preferred and nothing on record to show that
the said judgment was set aside or modified by the higher Court. Thus, the
said judgment of the Division Bench attained finality.
[19] Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that
by the impugned order, the State Government clarified that the age of
retirement in respect of Librarians/Demonstrators/Tutors of the Government
Colleges in Manipur shall be 60 years and in the end paragraph of the
impugned order, it has been stated that the age of retirement in respect of
Librarians of the Government Polytechnic was kept at par with those of the
Librarians/Demonstrators/Tutors of the State Government Colleges fixing
the age of retirement in respect of Librarians of the Government Polytechnic
60 years, however, no reason or justification for inclusion of the Librarians of
the Government Polytechnic in the category of
Librarians/Demonstrators/Tutors of the State Government Colleges is
provided.
[20] When this Court perused the impugned order, it is seen that
State Government has shown justification for not enhancing the age of
superannuation of Librarians as the Librarians are not involved in classroom
teachers. The relevant portions of the impugned order read thus:
"......
And whereas, Administrative Department, Higher Education
vide letter No.4/5/2010-SE(T) Pt.II dated 24 October 2013
and 8th May, 2014 had clarified that Govt. College Librarians
and Demonstrator/Tutor are not involved in class room
teaching and furthermore Demonstrators/Tutors are not
included in the Regulations, 2010 and ROP, 2011 and that
the retirement age of the categories of employees shall be 60
(sixty) years.
.....
Now, therefore, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to clarify
for general information that the age of superannuation in
respect of Librarians/Demonstrators/Tutors of the
Government College/Government Polytechnic is 60 (sixty)
years except in respect of the aforementioned pending court
cases for which the direction of the Hon'ble Court is awaited."
[21] On a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that earlier
clarification was sought - whether Librarians/Demonstrators/Tutors are
involved in class room teaching or not. It has been clarified that the Librarians
are not involved in the class room teaching and that the retirement age of
those categories of employees shall be 60 years. From the impugned order,
it is also clear that the said clarification was made way back in 2014 and in
respect of the said clarification, no challenge was made. The High Power
Committee, chaired by the Chief Secretary held on 26.10.2017 to consider
the employment of Librarian/Demonstrator/Tutor beyond superannuation in
Government Colleges has directed the Administrative Department to issue
speaking orders in respect of each other 7 retired employees as well as a
general order clarifying ambiguity of the retirement age on superannuation.
[22] Thus, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the respondent
State that the petitioner has no right more particularly, legal right to pray for
the Government to adopt the recommendation with regard to enhancement
of the age of retirement of Librarians of the Government Polytechnic beyond
60 years.
[23] Normally, Courts would not direct the State Government to
adopt the recommendations made by AICTE and/or the Regulations of UGC,
as the case may, with regard to enhancement of the age of retirement of non-
teaching staff.
[24] The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Librarians of the Government Polytechnic are on a different footing as
compared to the Librarians of the State Government Colleges cannot be
countenanced. The State Government, only after analysing the matter in
proper perspective, has issued the impugned clarification, thereby fixing the
age of superannuation in respect of Librarians of Government
Polytechnic/Government College as 60 years except in respect of the
pending court cases, which were listed out in the impugned order.
[25] As stated supra, the State Government has not adopted the
relevant provisions of the AICTE or the UGC Regulations with regard to
enhancement of age of retirement of both the Government College Librarians
and the Librarians of the Government Polytechnic. That apart, no decision
has been taken by the State Cabinet to enhance the retirement of age of
Government College Librarians and the Librarians of the Government
Polytechnic. In such view of the matter, the Court cannot direct the
respondent authorities to initiate the process of enhancing the age of
retirement on superannuation of the Librarians of the Government
Polytechnic to 62 years.
[26] It is pertinent to mention that the decisions cited by learned
counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. Therefore, they have
not been quoted and elaborated upon in this order. Further, the above said
decisions are not applicable to the case of the petitioner.
[27] This Court is of the view that the impugned order does provide
justification for not enhancing the age of superannuation of Librarians of the
Government Polytechnic. There is no arbitrariness in issuing the impugned
order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the
fact that the petitioner has failed to establish his case, this Court is of the
opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it fails.
[28] In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no
order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John Kom
