Retirement Age

Supreme Court Upholds Retirement Age of 60 for Director at CSI Institute Affiliated with JNT University: P.J. Dharmaraj vs. Church of South India & Ors. (2024) INSC 938 (6 December 2024)

/ Constitutional Law, Retirement Age, Service Law, Service Law with G.O.Ms.No.40, Superannuation

Supreme Court Upholds Retirement Age of 60 for Director at CSI Institute Affiliated with JNT University LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the enhanced retirement age of 65 years for teachers in technical institutions, as per amended AICTE and UGC regulations, automatically applies to a Director of an affiliated institute when the state government and affiliating university have […]

Supreme Court Upholds Retirement Age of 60 for Director at CSI Institute Affiliated with JNT University: P.J. Dharmaraj vs. Church of South India & Ors. (2024) INSC 938 (6 December 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rules Sports Officers are Teachers for Retirement Age: P.C. Modi vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya (2023)

/ Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 with Section 2(x), Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 with Statute 32, Retirement Age, Service Law, Service Law with retirement benefits

Supreme Court Rules Sports Officers are Teachers for Retirement Age: P.C. Modi vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Physical Training Instructor (PTI)/Sports Officer is considered a “teacher” for determining retirement age. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: P.C. Modi vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya and Another Judgment Date: 13 December

Supreme Court Rules Sports Officers are Teachers for Retirement Age: P.C. Modi vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pension Rights, Modifies High Court Order on Retirement Age: M.L. Patil vs. State of Goa (20 May 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pension Benefits, Retirement Age, Service Law, Superannuation

Supreme Court Upholds Pension Rights, Modifies High Court Order on Retirement Age: M.L. Patil vs. State of Goa (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether retirees are entitled to full pension benefits from the date they reach the correct retirement age, despite delays in filing legal challenges. CASE TYPE: Service Law – Pension Benefits Case Name: Shri M.L.

Supreme Court Upholds Pension Rights, Modifies High Court Order on Retirement Age: M.L. Patil vs. State of Goa (20 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court extends retirement age for AYUSH doctors retrospectively: North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. (2021) INSC 489 (03 August 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Discrimination in Service, Fundamental Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Retirement Age, Service Law, Service Law with Arrears of Salary

Supreme Court extends retirement age for AYUSH doctors retrospectively Date of the Judgment: 03 August 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 489 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can doctors practicing traditional medicine (AYUSH) be treated differently from allopathic doctors regarding their retirement age? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent

Supreme Court extends retirement age for AYUSH doctors retrospectively: North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. (2021) INSC 489 (03 August 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Prospective Application of Retirement Age Increase for NOIDA Employees

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Judicial Review, MR Shah, Policy Decisions, Retirement Age, Service Law, UP Industrial Area Development Act 1976, UP Industrial Area Development Act 1976 with Section 19, UP Industrial Area Development Act 1976 with Section 5

Supreme Court Upholds Prospective Application of Retirement Age Increase for NOIDA Employees LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can direct retrospective application of a policy decision regarding the age of superannuation of employees. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Anr. vs. B D Singhal & Ors. Judgment Date: 15

Supreme Court Upholds Prospective Application of Retirement Age Increase for NOIDA Employees Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Retirement Age for Employees Joining Service as Minors: Gopal Prasad vs. Bihar School Examination Board (28 May 2020)

/ Age of Majority, Ajay Rastogi, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 11, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Retirement Age, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code

Supreme Court Addresses Retirement Age for Employees Joining Service as Minors: Gopal Prasad vs. Bihar School Examination Board (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee who joined service as a minor should be retired based on a deemed age of 18 years at the time of joining, or on their actual date of birth. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court Addresses Retirement Age for Employees Joining Service as Minors: Gopal Prasad vs. Bihar School Examination Board (28 May 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Retirement Age of 60 for Medical Faculty: Chandra Mohan Varma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Extension of Service, Judges, Retirement Age, Service Law, Superannuation

Supreme Court Upholds Retirement Age of 60 for Medical Faculty: Chandra Mohan Varma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a government notification increasing the retirement age applies to employees already granted an extension of service. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Chandra Mohan Varma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds Retirement Age of 60 for Medical Faculty: Chandra Mohan Varma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Different Retirement Ages for Assistant and Public Prosecutors: Kerala Case (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 24, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 25, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Kerala Service Rules, Retirement Age, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Different Retirement Ages for Assistant and Public Prosecutors: Kerala Case (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Assistant Public Prosecutors are entitled to the same retirement age as Public Prosecutors. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Association vs. The State of Kerala and Ors. Judgment Date: 17 May 2018 Date

Supreme Court Upholds Different Retirement Ages for Assistant and Public Prosecutors: Kerala Case (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court disposes of service age claim: Matta Anand Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (22 September 2017)

/ 2017 Judgments, Civil Appeals, Judges, Judicial Consistency, Kurian Joseph, Precedent, R. Banumathi, Retirement Age, Service Age, Service Law, Supreme Court Judgments

Can an employee’s claim for extended service be automatically resolved by a prior, similar judgment? The Supreme Court of India addressed this in the case of Matta Anand Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh. This case deals with a claim for continued service up to 60 years of age. The court disposed of the

Supreme Court disposes of service age claim: Matta Anand Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (22 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Service Till 60 Years: Shaik Musthapha Saheb vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2017)

/ Appeals, Civil Procedure, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Retirement Age, Service Law

Can employees claim the right to continue in service until the age of 60? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a batch of appeals, including the case of Shaik Musthapha Saheb vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. This judgment, delivered on September 14, 2017, allows the appellants’ claim for continued service up to

Supreme Court Allows Service Till 60 Years: Shaik Musthapha Saheb vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top