P.J. DHARMARAJversusCHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA & ORS.

                 [2024] 12 S.C.R. 374 : 2024 INSC 938

                           P.J. Dharmaraj
                                  v.
                     Church of South India & Ors.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 14029 of 2024)
                              06 December 2024
             [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B.Varale, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the claim of the appellant seeking retirement
       age as sixty five years.

                                  Headnotes†
       Service law – Retirement age – Age of superannuation,
       enhancement to 65 years – Appellant appointed as Director
       in CSIIT, affiliated with University governed by the laws
       applicable in the State of Telangana – At the time of issuance
       of the appointment letter, the age of superannuation according
       to the All India Council For Technical Education-AICTE and
       University Grants Commission-UGC Regulations was sixty
       years – Subsequently, the regulations were revised and the
       age of superannuation for teachers in Technical Institution
       enhanced to sixty-five years – Writ petition by the appellant
       seeking retirement age as sixty five years – Dismissed by the
       Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court –
       Interference with:
       Held: Not called for – If the State Government itself has not adopted
       the amended regulations, the same cannot be applicable to the
       CSIIT – Even CSIIT has not determined the age of retirement of
       teachers to be 65 years – Merely because the UGC and AICTE
       regulations were subsequently amended in 2010 and the age of
       superannuation for teachers in Technical Institutions was increased
       to sixty-five years, the same benefit would not automatically
       extend to the appellant – Government of Andhra Pradesh (now
       Telangana) decided to not adopt the amendment increasing
       the age of superannuation to sixty-five in their universities or
       colleges – Respondent No.2 Institute is a self-financing, Minority
       Educational Institution administered by the respondent No.1, and

* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                          375

             P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors.


     is neither run nor funded by Central Government – Regulations
     governing the age of superannuation throughout the State, the
     JNT University and its affiliated colleges including CSIIT is sixty
     years of age and thus, when the teachers of the University are only
     to continue up to the age of sixty years, the appellant cannot be
     given special consideration – Teachers of CSIIT cannot have their
     age of retirement more than that of the teachers of the affiliating
     University – It would create a serious anomaly, discrimination
     and inequality – After the appellant was given his notice for
     superannuation, he continued to make representations for retiral
     benefits, which shows that the appellant accepted his retirement at
     the age of sixty – Also, the appellant not a teacher and was only
     involved in administrative work with CSIIT – Appellant not led any
     evidence to prove that he qualifies as a teacher after becoming
     Director – AICTE and UGC regulations are applicable only to those
     who qualify as teachers and are discharging classroom teaching
     duties – Furthermore, the appellant has already retired, and
     respondent No.4 appointed in place of the appellant, is discharging
     his duties as Director. [Paras 9, 10]

                             Case Law Cited
     Islamic Academy of Education and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and
     Ors. [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 474 : (2003) 6 SCC 697; Sreejith P.S. v.
     Rajasree M.S. and Ors. [2022] 18 SCR 252 : 2022 SCC OnLine
     SC 1473; Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors. [2015] 3
     SCR 467 : (2015) 6 SCC 363; Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University
     and Ors. [2015] 10 SCR 1049 : (2015) 16 SCC 530; T.M.A Pai
     Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. [2002] Supp.
     3 SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC 481 – distinguished.

                             List of Keywords
     Retirement age as sixty five years; Retirement age; Age of
     superannuation for teachers; Anomaly; Discrimination; Inequality;
     Leave encashment and gratuity.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14029 of 2024

     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2021 of the High Court
     for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WA No. 753 of 2019
376                                                           [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                           Appearances for Parties
       Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aditi Gupta, Mandeep
       Kalra, Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Ms. Radhika
       Jalan, Yashas J, Ms. Arushi Kulshrestha, Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh,
       Advs. for the Appellant.
       Vinay Navare, J. Prabhakar, Sr. Advs., A. Sreenivas, Abhijeet Sinha,
       Sarthak Gaurav, Ms. Rimmi Bharadwaj, Ravinder Agarwal, Lekh
       Raj Singh, Amit Gaurav Singh, Harish Pandey, Anil Soni, Advs.
       for the Respondents.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Judgment

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present appeal before us is arising out of a judgement passed
       by the High Court of Telangana on 22.11.2021 in Writ Appeal 753
       of 2019 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has upheld
       the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court dated 04.09.2019
       in W.P.No.45297 of 2018 whereby the Appellant’s Writ Petition
       was dismissed wherein he was contesting his retirement from the
       Respondent No.2 Institute which took effect from 14.08.2018 and
       the appointment of Respondent No.4 in his place. Aggrieved by this,
       the Appellant is before us.
3.     The facts of the case are such that the Appellant before us was
       initially appointed as Lecturer in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological
       (JNT) University in 1985. He was eventually promoted as Reader
       in 1995. CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT), Respondent No.2 issued
       an advertisement dated 25.09.1998 for the post of Director. The
       Appellant applied against the said advertisement and was selected
       and appointed as Director vide appointment letter dated 26.11.1998.
       At the time that the appointment letter was issued to the Appellant,
       the age of superannuation according to the All India Council For
       Technical Education (AICTE) and University Grants Commission
       (UGC) Regulations wassixty years. These regulations were revised
       vide AICTE notification dated 22.01.2010 and UGC regulations
       dated 18.09.2010 wherein the age of superannuation for teachers
       in Technical Institution was enhanced to sixty-five years.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       377

             P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors.


4.   During his stint of Director at CSIIT the appellant claims to have been
     promoted to the post of Professor. On 14.08.2018, the Appellant was
     relieved from the post of Director and Respondent No.4 was appointed
     in his place. Two days later, on 16.08.2018, the Appellant made a
     representation praying that he be continued in service until the age
     of sixty-five. Appellant filed Writ Petition No.39511 of 2018 before
     the High Court against the entrustment of work to Respondent No.4.
     The High Court vide order dated 02.11.2018 disposed of this Writ
     Petition directing CSIIT to consider and pass orders on Appellant’s
     representation dated 16.08.2018. CSIIT in compliance of the order
     ultimately rejected the Appellant’s representation on 03.12.2018.
     Aggrieved, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No.45297 of 2018 which was
     dismissed by the Single Judge vide order dated 04.09.2019 primarily
     on the ground that CSIIT is affiliated with JNT University which is
     following sixty years to be the age of superannuation and therefore
     the Appellant cannot expect to be continued in service up to sixty-
     five years of age. This order was further challenged by the Appellant
     before the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.753
     of 2019 which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.11.2021.
5.   We have heard Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel
     appearing for the appellant and learned senior counsels, Shri Vinay
     Navare and Shri J.Prabhakar appearing on behalf of Respondent
     Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsels Shri Ravinder Agarwal and Shri
     Harish Pandey appearing for Respondent No.3 and Respondent
     No.6 respectively.
6.   The submissions advanced for the Appellant are that he has been
     retired from service on a premature and illegal basis as effected by
     Respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is contended that when the Appellant
     was appointed to the post of Director in the year 1998, his age
     of superannuation was determined as per the AICTE and UGC
     regulations prevailing at that time, which was sixty years of age.
     However, seeing that in 2010, AICTE and UGC issued amended
     regulations, wherein the age of superannuation was revised up to
     sixty-five years of age, the same benefit should be extended to the
     Appellant now as professional institutes cannot depart from such
     binding regulations. This stand has been corroborated by AICTE;
     Respondent No.6 vide their Counter Affidavit as well. To establish
     that UGC regulations are not merely recommendatory, reliance has
     been placed on the following judgements:
378                                                          [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


       i.     Islamic Academy of Education and Ors. vs. State of
              Karnataka and Ors1
       ii.    Sreejith P.S. vs. Rajasree M.S. and Ors2
       iii.   Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors3
       iv.    Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and Ors4
       v.     T.M.A Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and
              Ors5
7.     On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of Respondent Nos.1
       and 2 that the Respondent No.2 Institute is a Private Unaided Minority
       Educational Institution, administered by Respondent No.1, Church
       of South India and affiliated to the State University in the State of
       Telangana. The subsequent amendment to the UGC regulations has
       not been adopted by the State of Telangana and the revised age
       of sixty-five years for superannuation does not prevail as the norm
       in the State and in the JNT University with which CSIIT is affiliated.
8.     It is also submitted that the Appellant was never involved in teaching
       and was only working on the post of Director with administrative
       duties and if the AICTE regulations were applicable at all, the benefits
       would still not extend to the Appellant as the said regulation uses
       the term “Teacher” and “Principal” distinctly which does not apply
       to the present Appellant as he discharged no teaching duties. It is
       further contended that the Appellant was due for retirement at the
       end of February 2018 and until August 2018, the Appellant was
       making representations urging that he be given academic duties
       and was negotiating for his retiral benefits. This goes to show that
       the Appellant himself accepted his retirement at sixty years of age.
9.     Having considered the submissions advanced, we do not find
       merit in the contention that merely because the UGC and AICTE
       regulations were subsequently amended in 2010 and the age of
       superannuation for teachers in Technical Institutions was increased



1    [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 474 : (2003) 6 SCC 697
2    [2022] 18 SCR 252 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473
3    [2015] 3 SCR 467 : (2015) 6 SCC 363
4    [2015] 10 SCR 1049 : (2015) 16 SCC 530
5    [2002] Supp. 3 SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC 481
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                          379

             P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors.


     to sixty-five years, the same benefit would automatically extend
     to the Appellant. The Appellant was working as Director in CSIIT
     which is affiliated with JNT University which is governed by the laws
     applicable in the State of Telangana. In this case, the Government
     of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) has decided to not adopt the
     amendment increasing the age of superannuation to sixty-five in
     their universities or colleges vide G.O.Ms.No.40, Higher Education &
     UE-II Department, dated 28.06.2012. The Respondent No.2 Institute
     is a self-financing, Minority Educational Institution administered by
     the Respondent No.1 Church of South India, and it is neither run
     nor funded by the Central Government. The regulations governing
     the age of superannuation throughout the State, the JNT University
     and its affiliated colleges including CSIIT is sixty years of age and
     therefore, when the teachers of JNT University are only to continue
     up to the age of sixty years, the Appellant cannot be given special
     consideration. CSIIT is an affiliated Institute of JNT University. Its
     teachers cannot have their age of retirement more than that of the
     teachers of the affiliating University. It would create a serious anomaly,
     discrimination and inequality. If the State Government itself has not
     adopted the amended regulations, the same cannot be applicable
     to the CSIIT. Even CSIIT has not determined the age of retirement
     of teachers to be 65 years.
10. We have also considered the submission that after the Appellant
    was given his notice for superannuation, he continued to make
    representations for retiral benefits such as leave encashment and
    gratuity etc. This clearly goes to show that the Appellant has accepted
    his retirement at the age of sixty. Any other way, the Appellant is not
    a teacher and was only involved in administrative work with CSIIT.
    The Appellant has not led any evidence until now to prove that he
    qualifies as a teacher after becoming Director. AICTE and UGC
    regulations are applicable only to those who qualify as teachers and
    are discharging classroom teaching duties.
11. Regarding the judgements relied upon by the Appellant to establish
    that the amended UGC regulations are not merely recommendatory,
    we have considered them and find those to be distinguishable on
    fact and as such we are not dealing with them.
12. In view of the above and the fact that the Appellant has already
    retired, and Respondent No.4 is discharging his duties as Director
380                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       of Respondent No.2 Institute, we find no reason to interfere with the
       impugned judgement passed by the High Court.
13. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain