Supreme Court settles superannuation date for teachers: Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) INSC 752 (16 October 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 16 October 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 752

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can university teachers continue service until the end of the academic year, even if they reach superannuation mid-session? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the interpretation of university statutes concerning the retirement of teachers. This judgment resolves a dispute regarding the correct date of superannuation for professors at Kumaun University. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat, with the majority opinion authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

Case Background

The appellants, all professors at Kumaun University, were contesting an office order dated 21 December 2019, which specified their retirement dates as the last day of the month in which they turned 65. The professors argued that, according to Statute 16.24 of the University, they were entitled to continue their service until June 30th of the following year, regardless of when their 65th birthday fell. The University, however, sought to retire them at the end of the month in which they turned 65. This discrepancy led to the present dispute, with the professors seeking to extend their service until the end of the academic year.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The professors initially approached the Uttarakhand High Court, arguing that they were entitled to continue in service until the end of June 2021, based on a previous High Court judgment in the case of *Dr. Indu Singh v. State of Uttarakhand*. The High Court, however, rejected their petition, stating that *Indu Singh* was not a binding authority. The High Court held that Statute 16.24(2) specifically restricts extensions beyond the age of superannuation. It interpreted Statute 16.24(2.1) as allowing teachers to continue only until the end of the month in which they turned 65, not until June 30th of the following year. This led to the professors appealing to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of the dispute revolves around Statute 16.24 of Kumaun University, which states:

“16.24 (1) The age of superannuation of a teacher of the University, whether governed by the new scale of pay or not shall be sixty-five years.
(2) No extension in service beyond the age of superannuation shall be granted to any teacher after the date of commencement of these statutes.
provided that a teacher whose date of superannuation does not fall on June 30, shall continue on service till the end of the academic session, that is June 30, following and will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately following his superannuation till June, 30, following.
(Provided further that such physically and mentally fit teachers shall be reappointed for a further period of two years, after June, 30, following the date of their superannuation as were imprisoned for taking part in freedom struggle of 1942 and are getting freedom fighters pension)
Provided also that the teachers who were re-appointed in accordance with the second proviso as it existed prior to the commencement to the Kumaun University (Twenty-third amendment) First Statute, 1988 and a period of one year has not elapsed after the expiry of the period of their reemployment, may be considered for re-appointment for a further period of one year.”

The key point of contention is the interpretation of the proviso to Statute 16.24(2), which allows teachers whose superannuation date does not fall on June 30th to continue until the end of the academic session, i.e., June 30th following their superannuation.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the proviso to Statute 16.24 intended to ensure continuity in teaching and avoid disruption to the academic calendar. They contended that the phrase “30th of June following” meant that teachers should continue until the end of the academic year, which is June 30th, irrespective of their actual date of superannuation.
• They relied on the judgment in *Dr. Indu Singh v State of Uttarakhand*, where a similar provision was interpreted to mean that teachers are entitled to continue until the end of the academic year.
• The appellants also argued that a bench of co-equal strength could not have refused to follow an earlier decision and should have referred the matter to a larger bench if they doubted the correctness of the earlier decision.
• They cited *S.K. Rathi v Prem Hari Sharma*, arguing that the High Court erred in holding that the Supreme Court’s observations in that case were obiter.
• The appellants further pointed out that other benches of the High Court had consistently interpreted the proviso to Statute 16.24 in the same manner as they were arguing.

University and State’s Arguments:

• The University and the State argued that the proviso to Statute 16.24 was only meant to ensure that teachers retire at the end of the month in which they reach the age of superannuation.
• They contended that the phrase “30th June following” was only meant to illustrate that if a teacher were to attain the age of superannuation during June of any year, she or he could be re-employed till the end of that month.
• They argued that the main provision of Statute 16.24 clearly states that teachers retire at the age of 65 and that there is no entitlement to re-employment.
• They submitted that the High Court was correct in distinguishing the *Indu Singh* case and holding that the proviso cannot be interpreted to mean that teachers are entitled to re-employment until the end of June of the next year.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. What is the correct interpretation of the proviso to Statute 16.24 of Kumaun University concerning the date of superannuation of teachers?

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:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the proviso to Statute 16.24 allows teachers to continue until the end of June following their superannuation, and not just until the end of the month in which they turn 65.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• *Dr. Indu Singh v. State of Uttarakhand*: The Court held that the High Court should have followed this precedent, as it dealt with an identical statute and correctly interpreted the provision regarding the extension of service till the end of the academic session.
• *S.K. Rathi v Prem Hari Sharma*: The Court stated that the High Court erred in characterizing the expression in this case as obiter. The Supreme Court in *S.K. Rathi* had categorically stated that a teacher had a right to continue till the 30th of June following.
• *State Of U.P. v Ramesh Chandra Tiwari*: The Court observed that the full bench decision of the Allahabad High Court supported the view that teachers superannuating are to be treated as re-employed or allowed to continue, in the larger interest of the pupils.
• *Raj Narain Pandey v Sant Prasad Tewari & Ors*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that long-standing interpretations of local statutes should not be lightly disturbed.

The Court emphasized that the intent of the proviso to Statute 16.24 is to avoid disruption caused by the discontinuity of teaching staff mid-session. The Court also highlighted that if the state or university wished to depart from the prevailing understanding, they should have done so through amendments.

The court quoted from the judgment:

“There is no doubt that the said decision would enable respondent No. 1 to continue as a teacher, which is his substantive appointment, up to 30th June, following the day when he attained the age of 60 years.”

“The reason why a special provision is made in the proviso to Rule 29 is to ensure that the educational needs of students are not disrupted by the retirement of a teacher in the midst of an academic session.”

“In the matter of the interpretation of a local statute, the view taken by the High Court over a number of years should normally be adhered to and not disturbed.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure continuity in the academic calendar and to avoid disruption in the education of students. The Court emphasized that the proviso to Statute 16.24 was specifically designed to address the situation where a teacher’s superannuation date falls mid-session, and it was intended to allow them to continue until the end of the academic year.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal interpretation and precedent, with a strong emphasis on the need to maintain the status quo and avoid disrupting the academic schedule.

Key Takeaways

• University teachers whose superannuation date does not fall on June 30th are entitled to continue in service until June 30th of the following year.
• This extension is considered re-employment from the date of superannuation until June 30th.
• The primary intent of this provision is to ensure continuity in the academic calendar and avoid disruption to students’ education.
• Long-standing interpretations of local statutes should be adhered to and not lightly disturbed.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that any teachers who had been superannuated should be reinstated with full salary for the period they were out of employment and allowed to continue until the following June on a re-employment basis.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the proviso to Statute 16.24 of Kumaun University, and similar provisions in other educational institutions, should be interpreted to mean that teachers whose superannuation date does not fall on June 30th are entitled to continue in service until June 30th of the following year. This judgment reinforces the principle of continuity in education and clarifies the interpretation of such provisions, ensuring that teachers are not abruptly retired mid-session. This decision also upholds the view that long-standing interpretations of statutes should be followed and not lightly disturbed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs. State of Uttarakhand* provides clarity on the interpretation of university statutes concerning the superannuation of teachers. The Court held that teachers are entitled to continue until the end of the academic year, i.e., June 30th following their superannuation, if their superannuation date does not fall on June 30th. This decision ensures continuity in education and upholds the principle of respecting established interpretations of statutes.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Superannuation
• University Statutes
• Re-employment
• Academic Calendar
• Continuity of Education
• Statute 16.24, Kumaun University

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal case?

A: The main issue is the correct interpretation of Kumaun University’s Statute 16.24 regarding the date of superannuation for teachers. Specifically, whether teachers can continue until the end of the academic year (June 30th) if their superannuation date is not on June 30th.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court decided that teachers whose superannuation date does not fall on June 30th are entitled to continue in service until June 30th of the following year. This is to ensure continuity in the academic calendar and avoid disruption to students’ education.

Q: What does “re-employment” mean in this context?

A: “Re-employment” means that from the date of superannuation until June 30th of the following year, the teacher is considered to be re-employed.

Q: What if a teacher’s superannuation date is in June?

A: If a teacher’s superannuation date is in June, they would continue until the end of that month. The judgment mainly addresses teachers whose superannuation date falls outside of June.

Q: What is the practical implication of this judgment?

A: The practical implication is that universities and educational institutions must allow teachers to continue until the end of the academic year (June 30th), if their superannuation date falls outside of June, to ensure that there is no disruption in the academic schedule.