OSMANIA UNIVERSITYversusV.S. MUTHURANGAM AND ORS.

                         OSMANIA UNIVERSITY                                       A
                                      v.
                      V.S. MUTHURANGAM AND ORS.

                                JULY 8, 1997

                   [G.N. RAY AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.)                                B

       Se1Vice Law:

      Osmania University Act, 1959-Section 38(1 }-Superannuation
age--Osmania University fixing the age of supt!rannuation of the teaching staff   C
at 60 years-Whether it can be extended to non- teaching staff also-Held,
yes.

       Words & Phrases-As far as possible'-Meaning of in the context of
 Section 38(1) of the Osmania University Act, 1959.
                                                                                  D
        Osmania University authorities refused to raise age of superannua·
 tion to 60 years by implementing the mandate of maintaining uniformity
 in the condition of service of all the salaried staff of the university under
 Section 38(1) of the Osmania University Act, 1959. The respondents,
 non-teaching staff of the University moved the High Court by filing writ
-petitions claiming the age of superannuation at 60 years. Such claim was         E
 allowed by Single Judge of the High Court and the Division Bench of the
 High Court, on appeal, upheld the decision of the Single Judge.

      On appeal before the Supreme Court, the main contentions of the
University were, (i) the expression, 'as far as possible' in Section 38(1) of F
the Act, never intended that the terms and conditions of all the employees
of the university should be absolutely same; (ii) University, in .principle,
followed the conditions of service of the employees of the State Govern·
ment; (iii) the age of superannuation at 60 years of the teaching staff was
fixed as per the recommendation of the University Grants Commission; G
(iv) University had followed the accepted policy to maintain the service
conditions of its employees in the non- teaching department at par with
the government employees of the State Government.

      On the other hand the Respondents contended that (i) there was no
impracticability in bringing age of superannuation of the teaching and H
                                  499
                                                                                ..
    500                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   non-teaching staff of the university in view of Section 38(1) of the Act; and
    (ii) under Section 35A of the Act, the Government had the power to
    regulate the conditions of service of the teaching and the non-teaching staff
    of the affiliated colleges of the university, the government had allowed a
    different age of superannuation for the teaching and non- teaching staff of
B   the University and had not fixed the date of superannuation of non-teach-
    ing staff at 58 years on the footing that the age of superannuation of the
    government employees in the State of Andhra Pradesh was 58 years.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court

C         HELD : 1. The appellant University is justified in its contention that
    Section 38(1) of the Osmania University Act recognises flexibility and the
    expression 'as far as possible' inheres in it an inbuilt flexibility. [506-8]

           2. There was impelling necessity for the Appellant University to
    change the age of superannuation of the teaching staff in order to give effect
D   to the recommendations of the University Grants Commission. [506-8]

          3. The Appellant University will be justified within the ambit of
    Section 38(1) to introduce different conditions of service for different
    categories of employees if such different conditions become necessary for
    the exigency of the administration and if it is otherwise impracticable to
E   bring uniformity in the conditions of service of different categories of its
    employees. [506-8-D]

          4. If uniform conditions of service for teaching and non- teaching
    staff of the University is not otherwise impracticable, the university is
    under an obligation to maintain such uniformity because of the mandate
F   of Section 38(1) of the Act. [506-D-E]

          5. There is no compulsion under the law that the University is bound
    to maintain the same age of superannuation for its teaching and non-
    teaching staff as is available to the employees of the State Government.
G   [506-E-F]

         6. Since there is no such statutory compulsion to maintain the age          ;.-
  of superannuation of the teaching staff at par with government employees,
  the University has increased the age of superannuation of its teaching
  staff. Hence, University can easily raise the age of superannuation of the
H non-teaching staff for bringing a parity in the service conditions of the
       OSMANIAUNIVERSITY v. V.S.MUTHURANGAM[RAY,J.]                     501

non-teaching staff for bringing a parity in the service conditions of the     A
salaried staff of the University by fulfilling the mandate under Section
38(1) of the Act. (506-F-G]

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1107-08
of 1990.
                                                                              B
     From the Judgment and order dated 20.4.89/17.5.89 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 476/87 and W.P. No. 5031/83.

     T.R. Andhyarujir:a, Solicitor General and Mr. T.V. Ratnam for the
Appellant.                                                                    C

      A. Subba Rao and D. Prakash Reddy for the respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       G.N. RAY, J. The short question involved in these appeals is whether D
the age of superannuation of the non-teaching staff of the Osmania
University should be raised to 60 years when the University has fixed the
age of superannuation of the teaching staff of the University at 60 years.
As the Os mania University authorities refused to raise the age of
superannuation of the non- teaching staff to 60 years by implementing the E
mandate of maintaining uniformity in the conditions of service of all the
salaried staff of the University under Section 38(1) of the Osmania
University Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a number of
non-teaching staff of the University moved Andhra Pradesh High Court by
filing writ petitions claiming the age of superannuation at 60 years. Such
claim was allowed by learned Single Judge and by the impugned judgment F
the Division Bench of the High Court has also upheld the claim of the writ
petitioners that the age of superannuation of the non teaching staff of the
University will also be 60 years.

       The learned Solicitor General, appearing for the Osmania University, G
has submitted that sub-section (1) of the Act has two distinct parts. The
first part provides that unless otherwise provided, every salaried officer of
the University shall be appointed under a written contract and the second
part of sub- section (1) of Section 38 provides that conditions of service
relating to such salaried officers of the University shall as far as possible,
be uniform except in respect of salaries payable to them.                      H
    502                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. lS.C.R.

A         Mr. Solicitor General has contended that the University has a large
    number of employees both in the teaching and non teaching departments.
    In each of such departments, there are different cadres having different
    pay structure. Since the employees belong to different cadres discharging
    different types of duties and responsibilities, it is inherently not practicable
B   to lay down absolutely uniform service conditions even other than pay
    structure for such diverse cadres of teaching and non teaching staff of the
    University. Keeping in view the felt need of some amount of flexibility in
    the service conditions of the various cadres in the teaching and non
    teaching establishments, in sub- section( 1) of Section 38 of the Act, it has
    been specifically indicated that the conditions of service of the employees
C   of the University will be uniform as far as possible. Such expression clearly
    indicates that although by and large service conditions of the employees
    will be uniform, there may be occasions to have some difference in the
    conditions of service in order to meet different exigencies having bearing
    on the service conditions of the employees.
D
         Mr. Solicitor General has also contended that age of superannuation
  is undoubtedly an important condition of service of an employee. Pre-
  viously, both the teaching and non-teaching staf( of the University had
  uniform age of retirement on attaining 55 years. Such age of superannua-
  tion was later on increased to 58 years when the State Government in-
E creased the age of superannuation of its employees because University, in
  principle, follows the conditions of service of the employees of the State
  Government. But in view of the recommendations of the University Grants
  Commission in respect of pay structure of various cadres of the teaching
  staff of the U ntversity e.g. Lecturers, Readers, Assistant Professor, Profes-
  sor, etc. and age of superannuation of such teaching staff of the University,
F the University had to implement such recommendations of the University
  Grants Commission in respect of its teaching staff. Mr. Solicitor General
  has submitted that the recommendations of an august body like University
  Grants Commission cannot be stifled and as a matter of fact all the
  universities having gracefully accepted such recommendations have imple-
G mented the same. It was recommended by the University Grants Commis-
  sion that the normal age of superannuation of a teaching staff would be 60
  years. Such recommendations of the University Grants Commission neces-
  sitated for a change of the age of superannuation of the teaching staff of           ~
   the University and the University has implemented the recommendations               ·
   of age of superannuation by raising the age of superannuation of its staff.          .
H For the large number of non teaching staff of the University, such raising
        OSMANIA UNI v'ERSITY v. V.S. MUTHURANGAM [RA Y,J.]                503

,of the age of superannuation was thought neither desirable nor practicable.     A

       In this connection Mr. Solicitor General has referred to the meaning
of "as far as poss,ible" by referring to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words
and Phrases (4th Edition) Vol. 4 p. 2068. It has been indicated that a duty
to do a thing 'if possible' means generally 'if reasonably possible' in          B
business sense. Similarly, 'as far as possible' has been held to mean 'as far
as possible consistently with carrying of the manufacture in question'. It is
contended by the learned Solicitor General that it was never intended that
the terms and conditions of all the employees of the University should be
absolutely same. Precisely, for the said reason, flexibility was introduced by
providing the expression 'as far as possible' in Section 38(1) of the Act.       C
Mr. Solicitor General has also submitted that since the conditions of
service of the teaching staff of the University had to be regulated on the
basis of the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, the
service conditions of the teaching staff had been framed differently. But so
far as the non teaching staff of the University is concerned, all such non
teaching staff have been treated uniformly. He has submitted that the            D
fixation of different age of superannuation for the teaching and non teach-
ing staff is not only legal and within the competence of the authorities of
the University but such action is also not unreasonable or arbitrary or
capricious. He has contended that teaching and non teaching staff in-
herently hold two different types of services. Therefore, these two
categories of employees are essentially unequal. Hence, by treating the          E
unequals differently, there has been no violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution. In this connection, Mr. Solicitor General has also referred to
a decision of this Court in State of West Bengal and Others v. Gopal
Chandra Paul and Others, (1995] Suppl. 3 SCC 327. In the said case, the
superannuation age of 60 years which was available to the teaching staff of      F
the Government School of the Education Department was not made
available to the Inspecting Staff of the Education Department whose age
of superannuation was 58 years. It has been held in the said decision that
the teaching staff and the Inspecting Staff of Education Department are
distinct and independent services and even if on occasions transfers from
one service to the other have been permitted, the Inspecting Staff of the        G
Education Department holding a different service cannot claim parity with
the teaching staff in the matter of age of superannuation.


     Mr. Solicitor General has submitted that the High Court has not
appreciated the true import of 'as far as possible'. The High Court has          H
    504                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A proceeded on the footing that unless it is impossibie to implement, the
  conditions of service of the employees for both the teaching and non
  teaching establishments must be made the same because of the mandate
                                                                                   -
  under Section 38(1) of the Act. Mr. Solicitor General has submitted that
  such reading of the High Court of the expression 'as far as possible' is
B contrary to the accepted meaning of the said expression. The University is
  competent to fix different age of superannuation for its employees in
  respect of two distinctly different categories of employees, namely, teaching
  staff and non teaching staff, if for good reason, the University feels thac a
  different age of superannuation is required to be introduced for a distinctly
C different group of employees. Mr. Solicitor General has submitted that
  University on its own, did not take steps to treat the teaching staff
  favourably by increasing the age of superannuation of the teaching staff but
  such decision had to be taken in view of the recommendations of the
  University Grants Commission. The University has also followed the
  accepted policy of the University to maintain the service conditions of its
D employees in the non teaching department at par with the government
  employees of the State Government. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
  impugned decision of the High Court in directing that the non teaching
  staff of the University would also retire at the age of 60 years cannot be
  sustained and such judgment should, therefore, be set aside.
E
         Mr. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the private
  respondents who are the writ petitioners before the High Court, has,
  however, disputed the contentions made by learned Solicitor General. Mr.
  Subba Rao has submitted that Section 38 of the Act clearly lays down that         l
F the conditions of service of all salaried employees of the University should
  be the same 'as far as possible' even after noticing that the nature of duties
  of a large number of employees of the University in both teaching and non
  teaching establishments are likely to be different and the employees in both
  the establishments also belong to different cadres. According to Mr. Subba
  Rao, Section 38(1) of the Act indicates that if not otherwise absolutely
G impracticable or impossible, the University must maintain uniformity on
  the service conditions of all its employees whether such employees belong
  to the teaching staff or non teaching staff. In the instant case, there is no
  impracticability in bringing uniformity in the age of superannuation of the ·    ..,.
  teaching and non teaching staff of the University. There may be
H justification of the University to increase the age of superannuation of the
       OS.MANIA UNIVERSITY v. V.S. MUTHURANGAM [RAY, J.]                 505

teaching staff because of the recommendations of the University Grants          A
Commission, but since such change in the age of superannuation of the
teaching staff can easily be effected in respect of the non teaching staff of
the University, there is no room to contend that corresponding change of
the age of superannuation of the employees of the non teaching staff is
neither practicable nor possible. Mr. Subba Rao has submitted that a            B
number of Universities in the State of Andhra Pradesh, age of
superannuation of the non teaching staff is 60 years even though the age
of superannuation of the government employees is 58 years. In this
connection,, Mr. Subba Rao has referred to provisions of the Andhra
University Act, 1925. Under Section 35 A of the Andhra University Act,
the State Government shall have power to make regulations regarding the         C
classification, methods of recruitment, conditions of service, pay and
allowances and discipline and conduct of the members of teaching and non
teaching staff of the affiliated colleges of the conditions of service of the
teaching and non teaching staff of the colleges, the government has allowed
a different age of superannuation for the teaching and non teaching staff       D
of the University and has not fixed the age of superannuation of the non
teaching staff at 58 years on the footing that the age of superannuation of
the government employees in the State of Andhra Pradesh is 58 years.
Therefore, the plea of the University that University is obliged to fix the
same age of superannuation of the non teaching staff as available to the
government employees of the State Government and for the said reason            E
the age of superannuation of the non teaching staff cannot be raised to 60
years even though the age of superannuation of the teaching staff has been
raised to 60 years in order to implement the recommendations of the
University Grants Commission, cannot be sustained. Mr. Subba Rao has
submitted that the raising of the superannuation age of the non teaching        p
staff to 60 years for bringing uniformity in the superannuation age of both
teaching and non teaching staff of the University is neither impracticable
nor unreasonable or undesirable. Therefore, no interference with the
impugned order of the High Court is called for in these appeals.

                                                                                G
      After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances
of the case and the submissions made by the learned Solicitor General and
also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it appears to us
that teaching and non teaching staff of the University are distinct and
separate categories. The nature of duties to be performed by the teaching
and non teaching staff of the University are also different. Therefore, apart   H
        506                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

. -A from different scales of pay in the hierarchy of the service in both teaching
        and non teaching departments, it may be held that the nature of service of
        the two distinct and different departments namely the teaching and non
        teaching departments, is inherently different. Mr. Solicitor General is
        justified in his contention that Section 38( 1) of the Act recognizes flexibility
        and the expression 'as far as possible' inheres in it an inbuilt flexibility.
   B    There was impelling necessity for the University to change the age of
        superannuation of the teaching staff in order to give effect to the recom-
        mendations of the University Grants Commission. The University, in our
        view, will be justified within the ambit of Section 38( 1) to introduce
        different conditions of service for different categories of employees if such
    C   different conditions of service for different categories of employees if such       ...
        different conditions become necessary for the exigency of the administra-
        tion and if it is otherwise impracticable to bring uniformity in the conditions
        of service of different categories of its employees. For the same reason, it
        is permissible for the University to introduce the age of superannuation
        differently for different categories of the employees, if introduction of such
    D   different age of superannuation can be justified on the anvil of felt need of
        the administration. But if uniform conditions of service for teaching and
         non teaching staff of the University is not otherwise impracticable, the
         University is under an obligation to maintain such uniformity because of
         the mandate of Section 38(1) of the Act. In the instant case, we do not find
    E    that it is not at all practicable for the University to maintain the parity in
         the age of superannuation of both teaching and non teaching staff. There
         is no compulsion under the law that University is bound to maintain the
         same age of superannuation of its teaching and non teaching staff as is
         available to the employees of the State Government. Because there is no
         such statutory compulsion to maintain the age of superannuation of the
    F    teaching staff at par with government employees, the University has in-
         creased the age of superannuation of its teaching staff. Hence, University
         can easily raise the age of superannuation of the non teaching staff for
         bringing a parity in the service conditions of the salaried staff of the
         University by fulfilling the mandate under Section 38(1) of the Act. The
    G    age of superannuation of the employees of some of the Universities in the
         State of Andhra Pradesh is different to that of the employees of the State
         Government of Andhra Pradesh. It has been rightly contended by Mr.
         Subba Rao that although the State Government itself has authority to
         regulate the conditions of service of the employees of the Andhra Pradesh
         University, the State Government has fixed the age of superannuation of
    H    the employees of the said University differently. Therefore, it cannot be
         OSMANIAUNIVERSITY v. V.S.MUTIIURANGAM[RAY,J.]                   507

contended that it is either undesirable or impracticable to bring uniformity    A
in the age of superannuation of the teaching and non teaching staff of the
Osmania University. Hence, the decision of the High Court that when the
age of the teaching staff of the University has been increased to 60 years
the age of superannuation of the non teaching staff should also be changed
in the similar manner in order to bring parity in the service conditions of
the salaried staff of the University in obedience of the mandate under          B
Section 38(1) of the Act, is justified. We, therefore, do not find any reason
to interfere with the impugned decision of the High Court. These appeals,
therefore, fail and are dismissed without any order as to costs.

R.K.S.                                                   Appeals dismissed.