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

Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1067

Judges: Hima Kohli, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a sports officer, who imparts physical education, be considered a “teacher” for the purpose of retirement benefits? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying whether a Physical Training Instructor (PTI)/Sports Officer is entitled to the same retirement age as other teachers in a university. The Court examined the definition of “teacher” under the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Act, 1963 and related statutes to determine if a PTI/Sports Officer, who provides instruction in physical education, falls under this definition. This judgment impacts the retirement age of sports officers in similar institutions.

The bench consisted of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Hima Kohli authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, P.C. Modi, was employed as a sports officer/Physical Training Instructor (PTI) at the College of Agriculture under the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (the University). The University, established under the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963, has its own statutes and regulations. On June 27, 2000, the University informed Mr. Modi that he would retire on June 30, 2000, upon reaching 60 years of age.

Mr. Modi contended that he should continue until June 30, 2002, when he would reach 62 years, arguing that he falls under the definition of a “teacher” as per Statute 32 of the J.N.K.V.V Act and Regulation 4 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (General Condition of Service Regulations, 1929). He also cited letters from the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) that increased the retirement age for physical education personnel to 62 years.

The University argued that Mr. Modi was a non-teaching service personnel, whose retirement age was 60 years according to Statute 11(4). They also referred to a State Government order from May 17, 2000, fixing the retirement age of sports officers/PTIs at 60 years and a clarification from the Agriculture Department dated July 12, 2000, stating that sports officers are not considered teaching staff.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, Mr. Modi filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, challenging the University’s retirement order. The University argued that Mr. Modi was a non-teaching employee and therefore, his retirement age was 60 years as per Statute 11(4). The Single Judge, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and Another [(1997) 8 SCC 350], ruled in favor of Mr. Modi on April 26, 2005, holding that he was a “teacher” and should retire at 62 years. The Single Judge quashed the retirement order and directed the University to pay Mr. Modi all emoluments and benefits as if he had continued in service until the age of 62 years.

The University appealed this decision to the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [(2009) 13 SCC 635], overturned the Single Judge’s order on December 14, 2009. The Division Bench held that Statute 32 defines teachers as professors, associate professors, and assistant professors, and that Mr. Modi’s job profile did not fit this definition. The Division Bench also observed that the definition of “teacher” in the Andhra Pradesh Act, which was the subject matter of consideration in P.S. Ramamohana Rao’s case, was an expansive one and could not apply to the employees of the respondent No. 1 – University.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963, and the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Statute, 1964. Key provisions include:

• Section 2(x) of the J.N.K.V.V Act: Defines “Teacher of the Vishwa Vidyalaya” as “a person appointed or recognised by the Vishwa Vidyalaya for the purpose of imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension programmes and includes a person who may be declared by the Statutes to be teacher”.
• Statute 11(4) of the J.N.K.V.V Statute: Specifies the retirement age for different categories of employees:
  • (a) “Officers” are to retire at 60 years, but those who have been engaged in teaching for not less than 20 years shall retire at 62 years.
  • (b) “Teachers” are to retire at 62 years.
  • (d) “Non-teaching service personnel” are to retire at 60 years.
• Statute 32 of the J.N.K.V.V Statute: Defines “Teachers” as “Servants of the Vishwa Vidyalaya paid by the Vishwa Vidyalaya for imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension and/or programmes as- (i) Professor, (ii) Associate Professor, (iii) Assistant Professor.” It also includes persons engaged in Research and Extension activities.
• Regulation 4 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Services (General Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1969: Classifies Vishwa Vidyalaya services into:
  • Officers of the Vishwa Vidyalaya.
  • Teaching staff of the Vishwa Vidyalaya as defined under Statute 32.
  • Non-Teaching services personnel.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that as a Sports Officer/PTI, he is a “teacher” because he imparts instructions in physical education to students.
• He contended that the definition of “teacher” in Section 2(x) of the J.N.K.V.V Act is inclusive and not limited to professors, associate professors, and assistant professors.
• He relied on the decision in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and Another [(1997) 8 SCC 350], where a Physical Director was held to be a “teacher”.
• He argued that the letters issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development increasing the retirement age of physical education personnel to 62 years should apply to him.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The University argued that the appellant is a non-teaching service personnel and therefore, his retirement age is 60 years as per Statute 11(4).
• They contended that Statute 32 defines “teachers” as professors, associate professors, and assistant professors, and the appellant does not fall under this definition.
• The University cited a State Government order from May 17, 2000, fixing the retirement age of sports officers/PTIs at 60 years and a clarification from the Agriculture Department dated July 12, 2000, stating that sports officers are not considered teaching staff.
• They relied on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [(2009) 13 SCC 635], where it was held that the decision in P.S. Ramamohana Rao’s case should not be automatically extended to other cases.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether a PTI/Sports Officer falls within the expression “teacher” and if so, whether the appellant herein would have been entitled to continue in the service of the respondent No.1 – University as a PTI till he completed the age of 62 years, at par with other teachers of the Vishwavidyalaya?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and Another [(1997) 8 SCC 350] – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case, where a Physical Director was held to be a “teacher” based on the inclusive definition of the term and the nature of duties performed. The Court noted that the definition of “teacher” in the Andhra Pradesh Act was similar to that in the J.N.K.V.V. Act.
• State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [(2009) 13 SCC 635] – Supreme Court of India: The Division Bench of the High Court had relied on this case to hold that the decision in P.S. Ramamohana Rao should not be automatically extended to other cases. However, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had misapplied this case, as the facts were different. In Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, the Court was considering the issue of equal pay for equal work and not the definition of a “teacher”.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 2(x) of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963: Defines “Teacher of the Vishwa Vidyalaya” as “a person appointed or recognised by the Vishwa Vidyalaya for the purpose of imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension programmes and includes a person who may be declared by the Statutes to be teacher”.
• Statute 11(4) of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Statute, 1964: Specifies the retirement age for different categories of employees.
• Statute 32 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Statute, 1964: Defines “Teachers” as those who impart instructions, conduct research, and/or extension programs, specifically mentioning professors, associate professors, and assistant professors.
• Regulation 4 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Services (General Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1969: Classifies Vishwa Vidyalaya services into officers, teaching staff, and non-teaching personnel.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the decision in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and Another [(1997) 8 SCC 350], stating that the definition of “teacher” in the Andhra Pradesh Act was similar to that in the J.N.K.V.V. Act, and therefore, a Physical Director, like a PTI/Sports Officer, should be considered a teacher.
• The Supreme Court distinguished the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [(2009) 13 SCC 635], stating that the Division Bench of the High Court had misapplied this case, as it dealt with equal pay and not the definition of a teacher.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Inclusive Definition of “Teacher”: The Court emphasized that the definition of “teacher” in Section 2(x) of the J.N.K.V.V Act is inclusive and not limited to professors, associate professors, and assistant professors as defined in Statute 32. The Court interpreted the definition to include anyone who imparts instructions, conducts research, or guides extension programs.
• Nature of Duties of a PTI/Sports Officer: The Court recognized that a PTI/Sports Officer imparts instructions in physical education, which involves teaching rules, skills, and techniques of various sports. This instructional role was considered equivalent to teaching in other academic subjects.
• Parity with P.S. Ramamohana Rao: The Court found a clear parity between the facts of the present case and those in P.S. Ramamohana Rao, where a Physical Director was held to be a “teacher”. The definitions of “teacher” in the respective Acts were also similar.
• Misapplication of Ramesh Chandra Bajpai: The Court found that the Division Bench of the High Court had misapplied the decision in Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, which dealt with the issue of equal pay for equal work and not with the definition of a “teacher”.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that Statute 32 defines teachers as professors, associate professors, and assistant professors, but rejected this narrow interpretation. The Court reasoned that the definition of “teacher” in Section 2(x) of the J.N.K.V.V Act is inclusive and that a PTI/Sports Officer, who imparts instructions in physical education, falls under this definition. The Court also considered the argument that the State Government had fixed the retirement age of sports officers/PTIs at 60 years, but held that the definition of “teacher” under the J.N.K.V.V. Act and Statute is paramount.

The Supreme Court stated, “When Section 2( n) of the A.P. Act is read in conjunction with Statute 32, the word “teacher” encompasses one who is enjoined to impart instructions and/or conduct and guide research and/or extension programmes.”

The Court also noted, “The definition being inclusive in nature would have to be read expansively and when read in the context of PTI/Sports Officer, it cannot be denied that the appellant while discharging his duties was required to impart instructions relating to the rules and practices adopted for various categories of sports.”

Further, the Court observed, “Merely because the appellant as a PTI/Sports Officer was not expected to conduct classes within the four walls of the College, as in the case of a Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor, would not by itself make him ineligible for being treated as a teacher for all practical purposes inasmuch as most sports require training in open spaces/fields/courts etc.”

The Court did not find any dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Definition of “Teacher”: The judgment clarifies that the definition of “teacher” is inclusive and extends beyond traditional academic roles to include those who impart instructions in physical education.
• Retirement Age for PTI/Sports Officers: PTI/Sports Officers in institutions governed by similar statutes are entitled to retire at the age of 62 years, at par with other teachers.
• Impact on Similar Institutions: This judgment has implications for other educational institutions where sports officers/PTIs perform similar duties and are governed by similar statutes.
• Consequential Benefits: Employees who have been prematurely retired will be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits, including arrears of salary, as if they had continued in service up to the age of 62 years.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to:

• Compute and pay all consequential and monetary benefits to the appellant, including arrears of salary, as if he had continued in service up to the age of 62 years.
• Compute the retiral benefits of the appellant on the presumption that his age of retirement was 62 years.
• Pay the entire amount due to the appellant along with a copy of the computation within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a Physical Training Instructor (PTI)/Sports Officer, who imparts instructions in physical education, falls within the inclusive definition of a “teacher” under Section 2(x) of the J.N.K.V.V Act and is therefore entitled to retire at the age of 62 years. This decision clarifies the scope of the term “teacher” and ensures that those who provide physical education are treated at par with other teachers for the purpose of retirement benefits. This judgment reaffirms the principle established in P.S. Ramamohana Rao and clarifies that the decision in Ramesh Chandra Bajpai should not be misapplied to cases involving the definition of a “teacher”.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in P.C. Modi vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya and Another clarifies that a PTI/Sports Officer, who imparts instructions in physical education, is considered a “teacher” for the purpose of retirement benefits. The Court emphasized the inclusive definition of “teacher” under the J.N.N.K.V.V Act and Statute, and held that such personnel are entitled to retire at the age of 62 years, at par with other teachers. This ruling has significant implications for sports officers and physical education personnel in similar institutions, ensuring they receive the same retirement benefits as their academic counterparts. The Court’s decision is a victory for the appellant, P.C. Modi, and sets a precedent for the treatment of sports officers as teachers in the context of retirement benefits.