Date of the Judgment: 07 May 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 462
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can teachers in private aided colleges claim the same retirement age as their counterparts in government colleges? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question, focusing on the interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 and the powers of the Coordination Committee. The Court’s decision has significant implications for the service conditions of teachers in private aided educational institutions in Madhya Pradesh. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice M.R. Shah. Justice L. Nageswara Rao authored the judgment.
Case Background
The case revolves around the retirement age of teachers in private aided educational institutions in Madhya Pradesh. Dr. R.S. Sohane, the appellant, was appointed as a Lecturer in Commerce (later designated as Assistant Professor) on 01 September 1979 at PMB Gujarati College, Indore, an affiliated college receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government. The core issue was whether these teachers were entitled to the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years, similar to government college teachers.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 01 September 1979 | Dr. R.S. Sohane appointed as Lecturer in Commerce at PMB Gujarati College, Indore. |
| 02 September 1998 | Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Second Amendment Act, 1998, enhanced the superannuation age for government teachers from 60 to 62 years. This benefit was also extended to teachers in private aided colleges. |
| 01 April 2003 | Standing Committee recommended that the superannuation age for principals, teachers, and employees of private colleges should be at par with their counterparts in government colleges. |
| 07 January 2004 | The University Coordination Committee approved the Standing Committee’s recommendations in its 72nd meeting. |
| 31 December 2008 | The Ministry of Human Resources Development introduced a scheme for revision of pay for teachers, which included enhancing the superannuation age from 62 to 65 years. |
| 16 April 2010 | The Government of Madhya Pradesh accepted the recommendations of the 2008 Scheme, extending the benefit of enhanced superannuation age to 65 years to teachers in government colleges and universities. |
| 02 May 2011 | The Government of Madhya Pradesh amended the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967, to provide the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years to teachers in government colleges. |
| 07 January 2014 | The Supreme Court directed that the 6th Pay Commission scales should be extended to teachers and non-teaching staff in private aided educational institutes in Civil Appeal No.71 of 2004. |
| 01 January 2006 | Teaching staff in private institutes in Madhya Pradesh were given UGC pay scales as per the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, at par with government teachers, w.e.f. 01.01.2006. |
| 06 July 2016 | The management of Dr. Sohane’s college retired him on completion of 62 years. |
| 2016 | Dr. Sohane filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was dismissed. He then filed a Writ Appeal. |
| 2017 | The Division Bench of the High Court referred two questions to a Larger Bench. |
| 2017 | The Full Bench of the High Court answered the reference against the teachers. |
| 2017 | Dr. Sohane’s Writ Appeal was disposed of in terms of the Full Bench judgment. He then filed a review petition, which was dismissed. |
| 2017 | Dr. Sohane approached the Supreme Court of India. |
| 07 May 2019 | The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and directed the Government of Madhya Pradesh to pay salaries to the teachers in aided private colleges till they attained the age of superannuation of 65 years. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant, Dr. R.S. Sohane, was retired by the management of his college on 31 August 2016 upon reaching the age of 62. Aggrieved, Dr. Sohane filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was dismissed. He then filed a Writ Appeal, which led to a reference to a larger bench of the High Court. The Division Bench referred two questions for consideration by a Larger Bench of the High Court:
- Whether, in view of Statute No.28 of the College Code as amended and brought into force w.e.f. 07.01.2004 and the UGC Regulations, 2010, teachers in aided private institutes are entitled to the benefit of having their superannuation age fixed at 65 years, as is applicable to government teachers?
- Whether the Coordinate Bench of the High Court in the case of Dr. Arun Kumar had laid down the principle correctly?
The Full Bench of the High Court ruled against the teachers, stating that Statute 28 of the College Code had not been amended and that the UGC Regulations, 2010, were not directly applicable to the State Government. The High Court stated that the State Government had accepted the revised pay scales only for teachers in government institutes. Consequently, the Writ Appeal filed by Dr. Sohane was dismissed. A review petition was also dismissed, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case is primarily governed by the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (the ‘1973 Adhiniyam’) and Statute No. 28 (College Code). Section 36 of the 1973 Adhiniyam empowers the Coordination Committee to prepare, amend, and repeal the Statutes of the Universities. The College Code governs the service conditions of the teaching staff in affiliated colleges. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 empowers the UGC to frame regulations for maintaining standards in higher education. The relevant provisions are:
- Section 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973: This section outlines the powers of the Coordination Committee to make, amend, or repeal university statutes.
“36. Statutes How Made
(1) The first Statutes of the University shall be prepared by the Co-ordination committee.
(2) The Co-ordination Committee may, from time to time make amend or repeal any Statutes by passing a Statute in the manner hereinafter appearing.
(3) The Co-ordination committee may on receiving a proposal from the Executive Council of a University or on its own motion consider the draft of a Statute that is in the interest of either one or all the Universities;
(4) Where a draft is proposed by the Executive Council, the Co-ordination Committee may approve of such draft and pass the Statute or reject it or return it to the Executive Council for reconsideration either in whole or in part together with any amendment, which the Coordination Committee may suggest.
(5) After any draft returned under sub-section (4) has been further considered by the Executive Council together with any amendment suggested by the Co-ordination Committee it shall again be presented to the Co-ordination Committee with a report of the Executive Council thereon and the Co-ordination Committee may approve or reject the Statute.
(6) The Co-ordination Committee shall not take into consideration nor the Executive Council shall propose the draft of any Statutes or of any amendment of a Statute or of the repeal of any Statute:
(a) Affecting the Statutes, power or constitution of any authority of the University until such authority has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the proposal; or
(b) affecting the conditions of admission of Colleges to privileges of the University, until the Academic Council has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the proposal and such opinion shall be forwarded by the Executive Council to the Coordination Committee along with any draft it may propose.
(7) Where the Co-ordination Committee approves the Statutes, they shall become effective from such date as the Co-ordination Committee may specify.” - Statute No. 28 (College Code): This statute governs the service conditions of the teaching staff in affiliated colleges. Clause 26 of the College Code initially stated that a permanent teacher would be in service until the age of 60 years. This was later amended to reflect the decision of the Coordination Committee on 07 January 2004.
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956: Section 26(1)(d)(e) empowers the UGC to make regulations for maintaining standards in higher education.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the High Court misinterpreted the 1973 Adhiniyam, specifically the powers of the Coordination Committee.
- The appellant contended that the Coordination Committee’s resolution dated 07 January 2004, which aimed to bring the superannuation age of teachers in private aided colleges at par with their government counterparts, was binding.
- The appellant emphasized that the Coordination Committee has the power to pass a Statute on its own motion, not just on the proposal of the Executive Council of the University.
- The appellant asserted that the amendment to Clause 26 of Statute No.28 (College Code) should grant them the right to continue till the age of 65 years.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Madhya Pradesh):
- The State argued that the High Court’s judgment was in accordance with the law.
- The State claimed that Section 36 of the 1973 Adhiniyam requires the Coordination Committee to consult the Executive Council even when acting on its own motion.
- The State contended that accepting UGC recommendations is the prerogative of the State Government and that it had only extended the enhanced retirement age to teachers in government institutes.
- The State argued that teachers in private aided institutes are not entitled to claim service till the age of 65 years.
Respondent’s Arguments (Management of Private Institute):
- The management argued that the financial burden of paying salaries to teachers beyond the age of 62 should be borne by the State Government.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 | The Coordination Committee’s powers were misinterpreted by the High Court. | Appellant |
| The Coordination Committee’s resolution of 07.01.2004 is binding. | Appellant | |
| The Coordination Committee can pass a Statute on its own motion. | Appellant | |
| Section 36 requires consultation with the Executive Council even when the Coordination Committee acts on its own motion. | Respondent (State) | |
| Applicability of Enhanced Superannuation Age | Amendment to Clause 26 of Statute No.28 entitles teachers to continue till 65 years. | Appellant |
| The State has the prerogative to accept UGC recommendations and has only extended it to government institutes. | Respondent (State) | |
| Teachers in private aided institutes are not entitled to claim service till 65 years. | Respondent (State) | |
| Financial Responsibility | The State should bear the financial burden of paying salaries to teachers beyond 62 years. | Respondent (Management) |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the teachers working in aided private institutes are entitled to the benefit of having their age of superannuation fixed at 65 years as is applicable in the case of Government Teachers?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the teachers working in aided private institutes are entitled to the benefit of having their age of superannuation fixed at 65 years as is applicable in the case of Government Teachers? | Yes, the teachers are entitled to the benefit of having their age of superannuation fixed at 65 years. | The Court held that the Coordination Committee has the power to amend Statutes on its own motion and that the amendment to Statute 28 of the College Code was valid. The Court also noted that the State Government cannot deny the benefit of enhanced superannuation to teachers in private aided institutes. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973: The Court interpreted Section 36 of this Act to determine the powers of the Coordination Committee.
- Statute No. 28 (College Code): The Court examined the provisions of this statute related to the service conditions of teachers in affiliated colleges.
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956: The Court noted the powers of the UGC to frame regulations for maintaining standards in higher education.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 | The Court interpreted Section 36 of this Act to determine the powers of the Coordination Committee. |
| Statute No. 28 (College Code) | The Court examined the provisions of this statute related to the service conditions of teachers in affiliated colleges. |
| University Grants Commission Act, 1956 | The Court noted the powers of the UGC to frame regulations for maintaining standards in higher education. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| The Coordination Committee’s powers were misinterpreted by the High Court. | The Court agreed, stating that the Coordination Committee has the power to amend Statutes on its own motion. |
| The Coordination Committee’s resolution of 07.01.2004 is binding. | The Court held that the resolution was binding and not merely a recommendation. |
| The Coordination Committee can pass a Statute on its own motion. | The Court affirmed that the Coordination Committee can act on its own motion without needing a proposal from the Executive Council. |
| Section 36 requires consultation with the Executive Council even when the Coordination Committee acts on its own motion. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the consultation is only required when the proposal emanates from the Executive Council. |
| Amendment to Clause 26 of Statute No.28 entitles teachers to continue till 65 years. | The Court agreed that the amendment to Clause 26 of Statute No. 28 was valid and entitled teachers to continue till 65 years. |
| The State has the prerogative to accept UGC recommendations and has only extended it to government institutes. | The Court stated that the State Government cannot deny the benefit of enhanced superannuation to teachers in private aided institutes, especially with the representation of several senior officers of the Government in the Coordination Committee. |
| Teachers in private aided institutes are not entitled to claim service till 65 years. | The Court rejected this argument, holding that the teachers were entitled to the enhanced superannuation age. |
| The State should bear the financial burden of paying salaries to teachers beyond 62 years. | The Court implicitly accepted this argument by directing the State Government to pay salaries to teachers till they attain the age of 65 years. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973: The Court interpreted Section 36 of the 1973 Adhiniyam to mean that the Coordination Committee has the power to amend statutes on its own motion, without requiring a proposal from the Executive Council. The Court held that the High Court’s interpretation was erroneous.
- Statute No. 28 (College Code): The Court recognized that the amendment to Clause 26 of the College Code, which was based on the Coordination Committee’s resolution, was valid. This amendment effectively raised the superannuation age for teachers in aided private colleges.
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956: The Court acknowledged the powers of the UGC to frame regulations for maintaining standards in higher education, but did not directly apply the regulations, instead relying on the State’s own laws and regulations.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, and the powers of the Coordination Committee. The Court emphasized that the Coordination Committee has the authority to amend statutes on its own motion, and the amendment to Statute 28 of the College Code was valid. The Court also considered the fact that the State Government was represented in the Coordination Committee, and therefore, it could not deny the benefit of enhanced superannuation to teachers in private aided institutes.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 | 40% |
| Validity of the amendment to Statute 28 | 30% |
| State Government’s representation in the Coordination Committee | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the Coordination Committee needed a proposal from the Executive Council to amend the Statute, but rejected it. The Court reasoned that if the Coordination Committee could amend the statute on its own motion, then the amendment to Statute 28 was valid. The court also noted that the State Government was represented in the Coordination Committee and therefore, the State could not deny the benefit of enhanced superannuation to the teachers in private aided colleges.
The Court’s decision was based on the interpretation of the 1973 Adhiniyam and the powers of the Coordination Committee. The Court held that the amendment to Statute 28 of the College Code was valid and that the teachers in aided private colleges were entitled to the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years.
The Supreme Court stated: “There is no manner of doubt that the Coordination Committee has the power to prepare, amend and repeal the Statutes. It can do so on its own motion or on receiving a proposal from the Executive Council of a University.”
The Court further noted: “The High Court erroneously held that the amendment made to Statute 28 of the College Code was only a recommendation which was not accepted either by the Executive Council of the respective Universities or by the State Government.”
The Court concluded: “For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and the consequential judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court and direct the Government of Madhya Pradesh to pay salaries to the Teachers in aided private Colleges who are working and also those who have worked till they attained the age of superannuation of 65 years.”
Key Takeaways
- Teachers in private aided colleges in Madhya Pradesh are entitled to the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years, just like their counterparts in government colleges.
- The Coordination Committee under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, has the power to amend statutes on its own motion.
- The State Government cannot deny the benefit of enhanced superannuation to teachers in private aided institutes when the Coordination Committee has already made the necessary amendments.
- The State Government is now responsible for paying the salaries of teachers in aided private colleges till they reach the age of 65 years.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Government of Madhya Pradesh to pay salaries to the teachers in aided private colleges who are working and also those who have worked till they attained the age of superannuation of 65 years.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Coordination Committee has the power to amend Statutes on its own motion, and that teachers in private aided colleges are entitled to the same superannuation age as their counterparts in government colleges. This decision clarifies the powers of the Coordination Committee under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, and sets a precedent for the service conditions of teachers in private aided institutions in the state. This is a change from the previous position of the law where the High Court had held that teachers in private aided colleges were not entitled to the enhanced superannuation age.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. R.S. Sohane vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh is a significant victory for teachers in private aided colleges in Madhya Pradesh. The Court clarified that these teachers are entitled to the same superannuation age of 65 years as their counterparts in government colleges. The decision underscores the powers of the Coordination Committee under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, and ensures that teachers in private aided institutions are treated fairly and equitably.
Category
Parent Category: Education Law
Child Categories: Service Conditions, Superannuation, Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, Statute No. 28, College Code, Coordination Committee
Parent Category: Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973
Child Categories: Section 36, Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Dr. R.S. Sohane vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh case?
A: The main issue was whether teachers in private aided colleges in Madhya Pradesh were entitled to the same retirement age (65 years) as teachers in government colleges.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court ruled that teachers in private aided colleges are indeed entitled to the enhanced retirement age of 65 years.
Q: What is the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973?
A: It is a law that governs the universities in Madhya Pradesh, including the powers of the Coordination Committee to make and amend statutes.
Q: What is Statute No. 28 (College Code)?
A: It is a statute that governs the service conditions of teachers in affiliated colleges in Madhya Pradesh.
Q: What is the role of the Coordination Committee?
A: The Coordination Committee has the power to prepare, amend, and repeal statutes of the universities in Madhya Pradesh, including the College Code.
Q: Does this judgment apply to all private aided colleges in Madhya Pradesh?
A: Yes, this judgment applies to all private aided colleges in Madhya Pradesh.
Q: What does this mean for teachers in private aided colleges?
A: It means that teachers in private aided colleges can now work until the age of 65, and the State Government is responsible for paying their salaries until then.