P.K. Deb, J.
1. Petitioner No. 1 in this case is Association of teachers of the Indian School of Mines and petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 are the Members of the Association, who have prayed in this writ application to fix their age of superannuation on completion of 60 years in compliance of the letter of University Grant Commission, contained in Annexure-5 dated 5.6.1992.
2. The Indian School of Mines which is situated at Dhanbad was established by the Government of Indian in December, 1926 and from 1.7.1967 the same was registered under the Society's Registration Act. There is memorandum of association stating the object of the Society which was set up to provide instruction and research branches of Engineering and Technology, applied sciences and also for the advancement of learning and dissemenition of knowledge in such branches according to the provision of the rules and regulations of the Society. It has also got power to hold examination, grant Academic award by virtue of power derived under Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956. The assets and liabilities of the P.S.M. Dhanbad being established by the Government of India was taken over by the Society in the year 1967 and the affairs of the Management was entrusted to a duly constituted Executive Board.
3. As stated above, the I.S.M. became a deemed University and the same now is financed by the University Grant Commission by 100% non plan grant. As it was deemed University, it became entitled to confer degrees and diplomas upon the students who successfully passed the examination held by the Institution. Under the University Grant Commission Act, 1956 when the I.S.M. became a deemed University, it was asked by the different instructions of the University Grant Commission to formulated its laws and byelaws for fitting in with the Act itself. When the I.S.M. was held by a society in the year 1967 the teachers appointed before 1.7.1967 were given option either to opt for Central Government Services or to opt for their services to be governed by the laws-framed under the Society Registration Act. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 along with others opted for the Central Government services at that time. As per Section 5A of the byelaws the teachers would retire on completing the age of 60 years. As such the Academic staffs who opted for Societies Act, they were to superannuate at 60 years of age while the person who opted for Central Government Service were to retire on superannuation on completion of 58 years. In 1986 the Central Government issued Notification and revised pay scale for teachers in the Universities and deemed Universities and also for the College for maintenance of standard of higher education with effect from 1.1.1986 and a scheme was framed for the same and it is stated under Condition No. 26 of the Scheme that the age of superannuation for teachers should be 60 years. On 17.6.1987, the Central Government after considering the recommendation of the U.G.C. issued letters revising the pay scale of the teachers of I.S.M. fixing several conditions. According to the petitioners, as per those conditions, implementation of the scheme was made subject to acceptance of all the conditions attached to the scheme and Universities/deemed Universities were directed to amend the Statutes and Ordinance accordingly. But, the petitioners' case is that the I.S.M. authorities i.e. the respondents did not implement the scheme as a whole, although revised scale was granted to all the teachers.
4. The deemed University and various colleges implemented the revised scales issued by the Central Government as per the Scheme but some of the Universities and deemed Universities accepted the instructions of retirement age as 60 years but some did not. I.S.M. authorities also implemented the scheme with respect to the revised pay scale but did not accept the age of superannuation as 60 years as the authorities were of the view that when the teaching staff, including the petitioners had accepted the Central Government Service whose retirement age is still 58 years then they cannot get the benefit of 60 years of superannuation which the other teaching staff were getting the benefit of superannuation on 60 years without by other benefits of leave etc.
5. The controversy were there whole over the Country regarding the age of retirement of teachers in the Central University and the Deemed University. It is the contention of the petitioners that they made representations as per the instructions of the Central Government in the year 1986 regarding raising of their superannuation age to 60 years and those were sent to the Central Government also but their claim was not entertained. Then for making an uniformity and to set at rest the controversy, the University Grant Commission by its instruction dated 5.6.1992 asked all the Universities and deemed Universities, to the effect that every teacher shall retire from services on the afternoon of the last date of the month in which he/she attains the age of 60 years. It has been specifically mentioned in that instruction as contained in Annexure-5 that the said instructions were given in compliance of the Government Rule. The deemed Universities who are receiving 100 per cent Non Plan grant should abide by such instruction regarding retirement. I.S.M. also gets 10 per cent Non Plan grant from the U.G.C. and according to the petitioners, the respondents are bound to follow the directions of the U.G.C. when it has already implemented, the pay revision scheme but not the other conditions, namely, the age of the retirement.
6. The petitioners made several representations but their claims were given deaf ear and as such the petitioners had to file this writ application. It is further stated that the petitioners No. 2 to 10 are the only left out teaching staff, who were appointed before 1.7.1967. Others who have joined after 1.7.1967 do not have any anamely as they were considered as the servants of the Central Government under the University Grant Commission scheme.
7. In the counteraffidavit filed by the I.S.M. authorities, if has been stated that the authorities have got no objection if they get a clear instruction from the U.G.C. regarding raising of the retirement age of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 10. It has also been stated that the representations made by the teachers have been sent to the Central Government for proper instruction but they have not yet received any instruction and according to them, the petitioners' case being unique case regarding opting of Central Government Service Rules, perhaps they are not entitled to get the benefits under the U.G.C. instruction. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit in unequivocal terms that if the U.G.C. agrees from whom the I.S.M. gets 100 per cent Non Flan grant then the I.S.M. authorities have got no objection in raising the age of superannuation of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 to 60 years raising it from 58 years as per the Central Government Rules.
8. Thus, it was left from the contentions made in the writ application and the counteraffidavit of the I.S.M. authorities that the U.G.C. must give its opinion as to the controversy. The U.G.C. has been made a party-respondent in the case and Mr. Trivedi, S. CC. G. appearing for and on behalf of the U.G.C. and took time to take instructions from U.G.C. at New Delhi. On receipt of instructions, Mr. Trivedi submitted that the U.G.C. is of the view that the deemed Universities being funded by the Commission on 100 per cent basis should make their teachers retirement on superannuation at the age of 60 years. The instructions are in back and white and have been shown to this Court also.
9. Thus on the basis of instruction and the admissions from the side of the U.G.C. there remains no bar in allowing the prayer of the petitioner for their superannuation age being fixed at 60 years. After such instructions being received, the I.S.M. authorities again filed a Supplementary counter affidavit, to the effect that if superannuation age of the petitioners are raised to 60 years then there would be multifarious causes of other teacher who had retired already at the age of 58 years and they might come up with claim of huge claims. Another point has been raised regarding anamoly in the grant of leave of the teaching staffs who are governed by the Societies Act and the petitioners who are having Central Government Rules for the purpose of leave.
10. I do not find much anamoly to that effect as is explained in the Bar. However, the I.S.M. authorities including other Universities have already been asked by the Central Government and the U.G.C. to amend their Rules to maintain uniformity amongst the teaching staff and the same may be done by the I.S.M. to clear out all the anamolies still existing between the two cadres. It has further been stated besides the 10 teachers who are the applicants in this case, there is none left out in the teaching staff of the L. S. M. who have opted for the Central Government Service and appointed before 1967. Thus, I find that there is no scope of any multifariousness when the allowance of the petitioners raising the superannuation age- at 60 years would only be a prospective one and not a retrospective.
11. Mr. Mazumdar, appearing for I.S.M. further contended that the instructions as per Annexure-5 of the U. G. C is not a Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and as such I.S.M. is not bound to follow it. He has referred to a decision of the Apex Court as reported in : 1SCR503 State of Assam v. Premdhar Baruah and Ors. The submission on behalf of I.S.M. is not tenable on the face of it when in the counteraffidavit, it has admitted to follow the U.G.C. instructions. Moreover, the issue in the reported case is regarding two notifications given by the State Government to the Assam University regarding raising of age of retirement and then again withdrawing the same and such instructions by the State Government were said to be only Executive Instructions and not a Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
12. The abiding of the instructions of U.G.C. by the Universities is a must in view of the 100% grant given by the U.G.C. or such matters and this point has been set at rest by the Apex Court as reported in 1994 (3) S.C.C. 516 University of Delhi v. Haj Singh and Ors. I.S.M. is bound to follow the instructions of the U.G.C. as a Rule. I find no force in the submission of Mr. Mazumdar.
13. In view of the above position, the writ petition is allowed. The age of Superannuation of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 should be raised to 60 years and they should continue till the age of 60 years, if not otherwise barred.
14. No order as to costs.