The State Of Bihar v. Prem Kant Mishra

Patna High Court LPA No.570 of 2011 dt.01-02-2013 2 years. The Writ Court allowed the claim holding that the age for superannuation of Teachers in Government Engineering Colleges had been increased to 60 years by order dated

16.2.1990. ‘Demonstrator’ was a teaching post under the University laws. The nature of duties performed by the petitioner were the same as performed by ‘Demonstrators’ in University colleges and pay scale was also the same. The classification that he was employed in a Government Engineering College could not be sufficient justification for a different treatment. ‘Demonstrators’ in the Bihar Engineering College, under the Science and Technology Department, were allowed to superannuate at the age of 60 years. Similar claim had been allowed in 1992(2) PLJR 742(DB) (The Teachers Association of the Government Engineering Colleges v. The State of Bihar) followed in 1996(2) PLJR 646(DB) (Sundeshwari Prasad v. The State of Bihar). Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant by the Principal, Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, a Government Engineering College. The post was re designated as ‘Demonstrator’ in CWJC 522 of 1979. The Institution being a Patna High Court LPA No.570 of 2011 dt.01-02-2013 3 Government College, the respondent was an employee of the State Government and his service conditions including age of superannuation were governed by the Bihar Service Code fixed at 58 years. The State government on 16.2.1990 raised the age for superannuation of Teachers in the Government Engineering Colleges from 58 to 60 years. ‘Demonstrators’ in the State owned Engineering Colleges were not treated as teaching staff. The notification therefore excluded ‘Demonstrator’ and did not provide for enhancement of their age for superannuation. The exclusion was not challenged by any aggrieved. Those appointed by the State Government through the Bihar Public Service Commission formed a class different from those routed through the University Service Commission, appointed by the University. The service conditions of the former were governed by the Bihar Service Code and that of the latter by University laws. The two constituted different classes and the question of equality and or parity between them does not arise. The Bihar College of Engineering, established by the Department of Science and Technology, was under the Patna University and therefore ‘Demonstrator’ in the college were treated as Teachers under the University laws. Mere affiliation of a Government Engineering College to a University for Patna High Court LPA No.570 of 2011 dt.01-02-2013 4 maintaining academic standards did not make the Respondent an employee of the University. It is not the case of the Petitioner that any person holding the post of ‘Demonstrator’ in a Government Engineering College had been given the benefit for enhanced age of superannuation causing hostile discrimination. It was lastly submitted that the very edifice of the two Division Bench orders following which relief has been granted, collapses after setting aside of the former in (2000) 10 SCC 527 (The State of Bihar v. The Teachers Association of Government Engineering Colleges). Counsel the Respondent supporting impugned order invited our attention to a decision dated

15.7.1998 treating ‘Instructors’ in Government Engineering Colleges as holding teaching posts. Our attention was further invited to an order dated 6.7.1998 issued by the Department of Science and Technology, ‘Demonstrators’ would superannuate at the age of 60 years following the decision in 1992(2) PLJR 742 (The Teachers Association of Government Engineering Colleges v. The State of Bihar). A distinction was sought to be drawn from the Supreme Court order alleging that it related to enhancement of age for superannuation from 60 to 62 years while presently the issue Patna High Court LPA No.570 of 2011 dt.01-02-2013 5 related to enhancement from 58 to 60 years. It was lastly submitted that the parent Cadre of the petitioner was the Government Engineering college at Muzaffarpur and not the Government Polytechnic. In our view, the controversy involved is extremely short and covered by the Supreme Court decision referred to on behalf of the Appellants. Those employed in the services of the State Government working in a Government Engineering College appointed through the procedures of the State Government and those working in a University appointed through the University Service Commission constitute separate classes. The service conditions of the former are governed by the Bihar Service Code while that of the latter by the University laws. Merely because the nature of duties and pay scale may be the same, it shall not be sufficient justification to hold for parity in the age for superannuation also. The age for superannuation being a policy matter has to be left to the discretion and decision of the employer. The parent cadre of the petitioner is not relevant and determinative. If the State government decided to enhance the age for superannuation of Teachers in Government Engineering Colleges and excluded ‘Demonstrators’ opining that they did Patna High Court LPA No.570 of 2011 dt.01-02-2013 6 not hold teaching posts, there being no challenge to such decision, the issue stands foreclosed for the Respondent. Merely because ‘Demonstrator’ may have been designated as teaching posts under the University laws cannot be imported to govern the status of ‘Demonstrators’ in the Government Engineering Colleges not governed by University statutes. The analogy drawn by reference to the Bihar College of Engineering is also not sustainable. The College though established by the State Government is under the Patna University, governed by the University laws, and not the Bihar Service Code. The decision of the State government dated

6.7.1998 enhancing superannuation ‘Demonstrators’ in the Government Engineering Colleges following the decision in 1992(2) PLJR 742 is of no avail to the petitioner consequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court on

27.8.1998 setting aside same much before superannuation of the petitioner. The last submission that the Supreme Court judgment had no application in the facts of the case as it related to enhancement of age for superannuation from 60 to 62 years has to be stated to be rejected. The law laid down in a case has to be deciphered from the ratio of the judgment and not by Patna High Court LPA No.570 of 2011 dt.01-02-2013 7 culling out lines from a judgment torn out of context. The ratio of the judgment is that employees of the State Government and employees of the University constitute separate classes. Their source of recruitment and service conditions are also different. The question of parity between unequals does not arise under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even according to the claimed age for superannuation by the Respondent it has long since passed on 31.5.2005. The judgment under Appeal is therefore held to be not sustainable and is set aside. The appeal is allowed. (Navin Sinha, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.) Md. Ibrarul/N.A.F.R.