LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/chandra-mohan-varma-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-20200121/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Chandra Mohan Varma vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
21 January 2020
Case No.
Civil Appeal Nos. 350-351 of 2020
Result
Dismissed
Bench
D.Y. Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi
Citation
[2020] 1 S.C.R. 1158 : 2020 INSC 70
Supreme Court Reports [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1158 : 2020 INSC 70
Headnote

Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers, Service Rules 1990 – r.26 – UP Fundamental Rules notified u/s.241 (2) (b) of the Government of India Act, 1935 – Benefit of the increase in the age of retirement from 60 to 65 years as a consequence of the notification dated 6 February 2015 – Entitlement to, sought by the appellant who retired on 13 August 2014 but was continuing in service in view of the ‘session benefit’ granted by the G.O dated 19 November 2012 – Held: The Notification enhancing the age of retirement is a special order within the meaning of Rule 26 – Notification dated 6 February 2015 not ultra vires Fundamental Rule 56 – ‘Session ending benefit’ granted to teachers ‘after retirement’ according to the G.O – Grant of deeming provision not automatic but conditional – 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 – It was clarified by the State that the said notification would not apply to teachers, such as appellant, who had already crossed the age of superannuation as it then stood prior to the notification dated 6 February 2015 – In the instant case, the appellant was continuing until the end of the session (30 June 2015) after retirement, in terms of the G.O. dated 19 November 2012 – The determination of the age of retirement is a matter of executive policy – The appellant attained the age of superannuation prior to the notification dated 6 February 2015 and was not entitled to the benefit of the enhancement of the age of retirement – Ram Vir Sharma v. State of UP distinguished – Regulation 21 of the Intermediate Education Act 1921 extended service after the attaining superannuation in view of a deeming provision – In contrast the 6 February 2015 notification & ORS.

conditionally grants session ending benefit – Therefore, appeals dismissed – Service Law – Superannuation.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed, by its judgment dated 2 February 2018, a Writ Petition instituted by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution. By his petition, the appellant sought a mandamus for his continuance in service as Professor and Head of the Department of Cardiology of the LPS Institute of Cardiology in GSVM Medical College, Kanpur until he attained the age of 65. He claimed this relief on the basis of a notification dated 6 February 2015 of the Governm
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →