.jpg)
CITATION | 2023 INSC 1067 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT | 13th DECEMBER, 2023
|
COURT | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
|
APPELLANT | PC MODI |
RESPONDENT | THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER. |
BENCH
| JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL |
Vaidehi Sharma,
Law college Dehradun, Uttaranchal University
INTRODUCTION
This appeal has been filed by the appellant in response to the ruling and order rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Indore, on December 14, 2009. This judgement relates to Writ Appeal 1, which was submitted by the respondents. They were successful in their appeal, and as a result, the learned Single Judge's order dated April 26, 2005, was reversed. As per the Single Judge's initial order, the appellant, who was employed by respondent No. 1 - Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya - as a sports officer/physical training instructor, qualified as a "teacher."As a result, the Single Judge determined that the appellant was eligible to retire at age 62, which is the same retirement age as teachers employed by Respondent No. 1 - University.
With a successful Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, the respondents contested this ruling. Consequently, the decree that specified the appellant's right to retire at sixty-two years of age was overturned. Unhappy with the result, the appellant has since filed this appeal in an attempt to get the higher court to grant them remedy.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant, a physical education instructor and sports officer at Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, contested the university's decision to force him to retire at age 60. He contended that he should retire at age 62 because he is a "teacher" as defined by Statute 32. The appeal cited official correspondence that raised the physical education staff retirement age to 62.The university argued that the appellant and other non-teaching staff retire at age 60, citing Statute 11(4). The 60-year retirement age for sports officers was supported by orders from the departments of education and agriculture. The university's Board of Management also determined that sports executives should retire at age 60 as they are not faculty members.The appellant was declared a "teacher" and eligible for retirement at age 62 by the Single Judge, who made this determination based on pertinent court rulings. The appellant was entitled to benefits as if he had served until age 62, and the university's decree of retirement was overturned.
In the next writ appeal, the Division Bench, however, reversed this ruling. It concluded that the appellant is not recognised as a teacher under Statute 32, which exclusively recognises certain academic jobs. Referring to an earlier Supreme Court decision, the Division Bench dismissed the extension of a two-judge bench order benefiting the applicant. It maintained the university's order, ruling that the university, which is governed by its own statute, is exempt from the broad term of "teacher" included in another state's act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the appellant/petitioner being a sports officer comes under the ambit of a teacher and is entitled to retire at the age of 62?
CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT.
1. The appellant argued that he falls within the definition of a "teacher" under Statute 32 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Act. He contended that as a sports officer/PTI, he imparts instructions to students in Physical Education, making him eligible to be considered a teacher.
2. The appellant asserted that he should be entitled to retire at the age of 62 years, at par with teachers serving in the university. This claim was based on the interpretation of relevant statutes and regulations, arguing that the age of superannuation for teachers is 62 years, as opposed to 60 years for non-teaching service personnel.
3. The appellant referred to letters issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) in 1998, which increased the age of retirement for physical education personnel to 62 years. He argued that this decision covered the university, entitling teachers serving in the university, including sports officers/PTIs, to retire at the age of 62 years
4. The appellant relied on legal precedents, including the decision in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University, where a similar issue was considered, and it was held that the duties performed by a Physical Director brought him within the definition of a "teacher."
5. At last, the appellant contested the university's decision to retire him at the age of 60 years and sought a declaration that he falls within the definition of a teacher, thereby entitled to retire at the age of 62 years.
CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT
The respondent in his counter affidavit submitted the following contentions:
1. It is argued by the respondents that the High court decision must be supported asserting that the appellant is not entitled to retire at the age of 62 but 60.
2. The respondent argued that sports officer does not come under the ambit of a “teacher”.
3. The appeal is prayed by the respondents to be dismissed based on the above submissions.
JUDGEMENT
The single judge's decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, which also dismissed the challenged order. The appellant was a sports officer/PTI, and the court ruled that he qualified as a "teacher" and should have been allowed to work until he was sixty-two. The appellant was given all consequential and monetary advantages, thinking him retired prematurely at the age of 60. Within six weeks, the respondents were instructed to calculate and pay the sum owed to the appellant.No costs were awarded in this case.
ANALYSIS
1. Examined legal provisions: The ruling examines a number of legal clauses, including Statute 32, Section 2(x) of the J.N.K.V.V. Act, and pertinent rules pertaining to the retirement age of Vishwa Vidyalaya personnel.
2. Definition of teacher: The concept of "teacher" is important, and the ruling highlights that it is inclusive rather than restricted to members of particular academic grades. It includes persons appointed or acknowledged for imparting instructions, conducting research, and extension initiatives.
3. Nature of duties of sports officer: The ruling highlights the nature of the responsibilities held by the PTI/Sports Officer, stressing that while not engaging in traditional classroom instruction, the PTI is nevertheless responsible for providing instructions, supervising pupils in physical education, and organising sporting events.
4. Comparison with AP Act: The ruling compares this case to one comparable to it under the A.P. Act (P.S. Ramamohana Rao) and emphasises how the definitions of "teacher" in both the acts.
CONCLUSION
The judgment establishes that the definition of a "teacher" is broad and encompasses roles beyond traditional teaching ranks. It upholds the rights of PTI/Sports Officers to continue in service until the age of 62, emphasizing the nature of their duties in physical education and sports activities.
REFERENCES
Comentários