Issues for consideration: (i) Whether a PTI/Sports Officer falls within the expression “teacher”.
(ii) Whether the appellant (working as a sports officer/PTI) 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.
Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 – Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Statute, 1964 – Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (General Condition of Service Regulations, 1929) – The appellant was working as a sports officer/PTI in the College of Agriculture under the respondent No.1-University – Appellant’s case that since sports officer/PTI working in the respondent No.1-University fall under the definition of “teacher”, their age of superannuation should also be treated as 62 years – Propriety:
Held: The Single Judge of the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant – It was held that the appellant would fall within the definition of a “teacher” in terms of Statute 32 and he was liable to be retired on attaining the age of 62 years – However, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of retirement passed by the respondent No. 1-University in respect of the appellant, retiring him on attaining the age of 60 years – In the instant case, a comparison of the fact situation and the provisions of the relevant Act and Regulations with those analysed in the case of P.S. Ramamohana Rao, would show clear parity – Just as under the A.P. Act where the definition of a “teacher” contained in Section 2(n) was an expansive one and extended not only to those persons who impart instructions, conduct and carry on research work for extension programme, but also those who were declared to be a teacher within the purview of the definition under the Statute framed by the State Government, same is the position under the J.N.K.V.V. Act, the Statute and relevant Regulations – Therefore, it is declared that the appellant, who was discharging the duties of a PTI/Sports Officer, would fall within the definition of a “teacher” and would have been entitled to be continued in service till completion of 62 years of age – As the appellant was prematurely retired by the respondents at the age of 60 years, it is held that he shall be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits including, arrear of salary, etc., had he continued in service upto to the age of 62 years – Judgment passed by the Single Judge of the High Court restored. [Paras 11, 12]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and Another (1997) 8 SCC 350 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 201 – relied on. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009)
13 SCC 635 : [2009] 12 SCR 23 – distinguished.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
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.
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.