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

Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 41
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a government employee, who has been granted an extension of service after reaching the age of superannuation, benefit from a subsequent notification that increases the retirement age? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a professor in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue was whether a notification increasing the retirement age from 60 to 65 years applied to a professor who had already reached the initial retirement age of 60 but was continuing in service due to an ‘end of session’ extension. The Supreme Court, in this judgment authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, held that the enhanced retirement age would not apply to those who had already reached the age of superannuation before the notification came into effect. The bench also comprised Justice Ajay Rastogi.

Case Background

The appellant, Dr. Chandra Mohan Varma, joined GSVM Medical College, Kanpur, as an ad-hoc lecturer on 17 April 1986. Over the years, he received promotions, eventually becoming a Professor in Cardiology and Head of Department. According to the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, his retirement was due on 13 August 2014, when he turned 60 years old. However, on 6 August 2014, he was granted an extension of service until the end of the academic session, i.e., 30 June 2015, as per a Government Order (GO) dated 19 November 2012. Before the end of his extended service, the State Government issued a notification on 6 February 2015, increasing the retirement age for medical teachers from 60 to 65 years. Dr. Varma claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of this increased retirement age. The State Government, however, maintained that the increased age of retirement was not applicable to those who had already reached the age of superannuation before the notification came into effect. Apprehending that his services would be discontinued on 30 June 2015, Dr. Varma filed a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court, seeking to continue in service until he attained the age of 65.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court dismissed Dr. Varma’s Writ Petition, stating that the notification dated 6 February 2015, which increased the age of superannuation to 65 years, could not be enforced. The High Court reasoned that the Uttar Pradesh State Medical College Teachers, Service Rules 1990, did not specify the age of superannuation for medical college teachers. Thus, the UP Fundamental Rules, which prescribe the age of superannuation as 60 years, would apply. The High Court further held that the notification of 6 February 2015 was subordinate to the Fundamental Rules and, therefore, could not override the prescribed age of 60 years. A review petition was filed, arguing that the High Court had not considered a prior judgment of a coordinate bench and had erroneously applied the Fundamental Rules. The review petition was also dismissed.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Rule 56 of the UP Fundamental Rules: This rule, notified under Section 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act 1935, states that “every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.”
• Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers, Service Rules 1990: This rule prescribes a maximum age for direct recruitment in medical colleges. However, it does not specify the age of retirement.
• Rule 26 of the Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers, Service Rules 1990: This rule states that matters not specifically provided in these rules or in special orders will be governed by the rules, regulations, and orders applicable generally to Government servants. “In regard to the matters not specifically provided in these rules or in special orders, persons appointed to the service shall be governed by the rules, regulations and orders applicable generally to Government servants in connection with the affairs of the State.”
• Medical Council of India Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations 1998: These regulations, as amended, provide that the maximum age limit for teachers in medical institutions is 65 years, and later 70 years.

The legal framework also includes the Government Order dated 19 November 2012, which granted an ‘end of session benefit’ to medical teachers, allowing them to continue until the end of the academic session (30 June) after reaching the age of superannuation. Additionally, the notification dated 6 February 2015 increased the age of superannuation for medical teachers in Government Medical Colleges from 60 to 65 years.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that though he reached the age of superannuation on 13 August 2014, his service was extended till 30 June 2015 due to the ‘end of session benefit’.
• He contended that the notification dated 6 February 2015, increasing the retirement age to 65 years, should apply to him since he was in service during the extended period.
• The appellant submitted that the notification dated 6 February 2015 was a ‘special order’ under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1990 and therefore, should be applicable to him.
• He relied on the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations, which allowed the State Government to increase the age of superannuation to 65 years.
• The appellant cited the case of Ram Vir Sharma v State of UP, where the Supreme Court held that an employee should be deemed to have superannuated only at the end of the academic session.
• He also referred to similar cases decided by the High Court, such as Dr. Juhi Singhal v State of UP, State of Uttar Pradesh v Smt Hema Pathak, and Dr. Professor Rajendra Chaudhary v State of UP, to support his claim.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellant reached the age of superannuation on 13 August 2014, and his continuance till 30 June 2015 was only to avoid disruption in the academic session.
• They submitted that the extension of service did not alter the date of superannuation.
• The respondents contended that the notification dated 6 February 2015 would not apply to the appellant as he had already reached the age of retirement.
• They distinguished the case of Ram Vir Sharma, stating that the provisions of Regulation 21 under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act 1921, which were considered in that case, were different from the GO dated 19 November 2012.
• The respondents also argued that the decisions in Juhi Singhal and Dr. Rajendra Chaudhary were not applicable to the facts of this case.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the increase in the age of retirement from 60 to 65 years as a consequence of the notification dated 6 February 2015.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Ram Vir Sharma v State of UP, Civil Appeal No. 2606 of 2009, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the appellant to argue that the employee should be deemed to have superannuated only at the end of the academic session. However, the court distinguished this case due to the specific provisions of Regulation 21 of the Intermediate Education Act 1921.
• Dr Juhi Singhal v State of UP, WP (S/B) No. 4292/2016, Allahabad High Court: This case was cited by the appellant. The court distinguished this case as it dealt with the abolition of the maximum age of recruitment.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v Smt Hema Pathak, Special Appeal Defective No 477 of 2013, Allahabad High Court: This case was cited by the appellant. The court distinguished this case as it dealt with the issue of promotion before retirement.
• Dr Professor Rajendra Chaudhary v State of UP, Writ-A. No. 17078 of 2016, Allahabad High Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6667-6668 of 2019: This case was cited by the appellant. The court distinguished this case as it dealt with the validity of the deletion of the upper age limit for direct recruitment.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Rule 56 of the UP Fundamental Rules: The court considered this rule, which stipulates the age of retirement as 60 years for government servants.
• Rule 26 of the Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers, Service Rules 1990: The court interpreted this rule to determine whether the notification dated 6 February 2015 was a ‘special order’.
• Medical Council of India Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations 1998: The court noted the enabling provision in these regulations, which allowed the State Government to increase the age of superannuation.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rule 56 of the UP Fundamental Rules: The court acknowledged that this rule prescribed the age of retirement as 60 years, but clarified that a ‘special order’ could modify it.
• Rule 26 of the Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers, Service Rules 1990: The court interpreted this rule to mean that the notification dated 6 February 2015 was a ‘special order’ and could therefore modify the age of retirement.
• Medical Council of India Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations 1998: The court noted that these regulations allowed the State Government to increase the age of superannuation.
• Ram Vir Sharma v State of UP [CITATION]: The court distinguished this case, stating that the provisions of Regulation 21, which were considered in that case, were different from the GO dated 19 November 2012.
• Dr Juhi Singhal v State of UP [CITATION]: The court distinguished this case as it dealt with the abolition of the maximum age of recruitment.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v Smt Hema Pathak [CITATION]: The court distinguished this case as it dealt with the issue of promotion before retirement.
• Dr Professor Rajendra Chaudhary v State of UP [CITATION]: The court distinguished this case as it dealt with the validity of the deletion of the upper age limit for direct recruitment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Prospective Application of the Notification: The court emphasized that the notification dated 6 February 2015, which increased the retirement age, was intended to be prospective. It was meant to apply to those who had not yet reached the age of superannuation under the existing rules.
• Nature of ‘End of Session’ Benefit: The court clarified that the ‘end of session’ benefit was merely an extension to prevent disruption in the academic session and did not alter the date of superannuation. The benefit was conditional and not a matter of right.
• Distinction from Previous Cases: The court distinguished the cases cited by the appellant, noting that they involved different legal provisions and factual situations.
• Executive Policy: The court recognized that the determination of the age of retirement is a matter of executive policy, and the government had consistently maintained that the increased retirement age would not apply to those who had already retired.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the increase in the age of retirement from 60 to 65 years.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, who had already reached the age of superannuation of 60 years before the notification dated 6 February 2015, was not entitled to the benefit of the enhanced retirement age of 65 years. The court reasoned that:

• The notification increasing the retirement age was prospective and did not apply to those who had already reached the age of superannuation.
• The ‘end of session’ benefit granted to the appellant was merely an extension to prevent disruption in the academic session and did not alter the date of superannuation.
• The court distinguished the cases cited by the appellant, stating that they were not applicable to the facts of the present case.

The court also noted that the determination of the age of retirement is a matter of executive policy, and the government had consistently maintained that the increased retirement age would not apply to those who had already retired. The court emphasized that the State Government had clarified that “…there is no medical teacher who had attained the age of 60 years prior to the issuance of G.O. on 6.2.2015, who has been given the benefit of increase in retirement age of 65 years.” The court further stated that the GO dated 19 November 2012 clearly mentioned that “the grant of a session ending benefit is for medical teachers working in the State Medical Colleges “ after retirement on attaining the age of superannuation ”. The court also held that the decision in Ram Vir Sharma was distinguishable as the “provisions contained in Regulation 21 are materially different from the conditions subject to which the session ending benefit was granted by the GO dated 19 November 2012 to the medical teachers in Government Medical Colleges.” The court concluded that “the increase in the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years was prospective and would apply to those medical teachers in Government Medical Colleges who had not attained the age of superannuation under the prevailing rules.”

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and directed that the terminal benefits due to the appellant be computed and released within two months.

Key Takeaways

• Government notifications increasing the retirement age are generally prospective and do not apply to those who have already reached the age of superannuation under the existing rules.
• An extension of service granted to an employee after reaching the age of superannuation does not alter the date of superannuation.
• The ‘end of session’ benefit is merely an extension to prevent disruption in the academic session and does not confer any right to the increased retirement age.
• The determination of the age of retirement is a matter of executive policy, and the courts will generally defer to the government’s interpretation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the terminal benefits due to the appellant be computed and released within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that a government notification increasing the retirement age is generally prospective and does not apply to those who have already reached the age of superannuation under the existing rules. The ‘end of session’ benefit does not alter the date of superannuation, and the increased retirement age would not apply to those who had already retired before the notification came into effect. This case clarifies the interpretation of service rules and special orders related to retirement age.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Allahabad High Court’s decision. The court clarified that the notification increasing the retirement age was prospective and did not apply to those who had already reached the age of superannuation. The ‘end of session’ benefit was not considered to alter the date of superannuation. This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of service rules and special orders related to retirement age in government service, emphasizing the prospective nature of such changes.