IIT KANPUR Vs. UMESH CHANDRA
LAWS(SC)-2006-5-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on May 02,2006

I.I.T.KANPUR Appellant
VERSUS
UMESH CHANDRA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

P MOHANAN PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-65] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B.Sinha, J. - (1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)THE First Respondent was appointed as a Junior Pilot Instructor (Glider) pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1979 being Advertisement No. 14/1979. THE Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') is a body corporate in terms of the provisions of the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is an institute of national importance. It has its own Board of Directors. Its functions are laid down in Section 13 of the Act. THE Board of Governors is responsible for general superintendence, directions and control of the affairs of the Institute. It is also entitled to take decisions on questions of policy relating to administration and working of the Institute. Section 27 of the Act contemplates framing of statutes providing for the matters enumerated in Section 26 thereof, providing for classification, method of employment and determination of the terms and conditions of service of teachers and other staff of the Institute. In terms of Statute 11 of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur Statutes (for short, 'the Statutes'), members of the staff are classified in three categories, namely, Academic, Technical and Administrative.
The First Respondent herein applied for his appointment as Junior Pilot Instructor in response to the advertisement No. 14/1979 and was called for an interview before a Selection Committee constituted under Statute 12(3)(e) of the Statutes. He was appointed on contract basis. It is not in dispute that later on also an advertisement was issued for the post of Junior Pilot Instructor on regular basis wherefor also the First Respondent applied for and was selected by a Selection Committee constituted under Statute 2(3)(e) of the Statute. He later on was appointed to the post of Senior Pilot Instructor by a Selection Committee similarly constituted. While the First Respondent was appointed as a Senior Pilot Instructor (Glider) in terms of an offer of appointment made on 24.06.1986, it was, inter alia, stated that the age of superannuation would be 60 years. According to the appellant, the post of Senior Pilot Instructor was classified as technical. Sl. Nos. 18, 19 and 20 of the Recruitment Qualification for Group-A Officers (Academic, Administrative and Technical) of the Institute read as under: JUDGEMENT_11_TLPRE0_2006Html1.htm A Selection Committee was constituted in terms of the Statute 12 (3) (e) of the said Statutes for interview in the post of Chief Pilot Instructor and one Shri H.S. Agnihotri was recommended therefor.

It is not in dispute that the First Respondent made a representation for up-gradation of his scale of pay from Rs. 14,300-400-18300 to Rs. 16,400- 450-20,000 which was approved by the Board having regard to the unique post held by him. A clarification was also issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development on 12.06.2000 stating that the categories of employees should be classified as academic as per the Statutes and treated at par with teachers having the age of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.08.1998. Whereas the age of superannuation of the academic staff was fixed at 62 years, the age of superannuation of technical, administrative and other staff in terms of the Statutes was specified as 60 years.

(3.)THE First Respondent by a letter dated 05.05.2005 was informed by the appellant herein that he would reach the age of superannuation on the expiry of 31.01.2006, pursuant whereto he submitted a representation on 08.06.2005 asserting that as the post of Senior Pilot Instructor held by him was an academic post, his age of superannuation should be treated as 62 years. THE Director of the Institute with a view to go into the said question, constituted a committee on 21.11.2005. However, before a decision on the said issue could be taken, a writ petition was filed by him before the Allahabad High Court. During the pendency of the said petition, the Committee opined that since the First Respondent did not belong to the academic category, his age of superannuation would be 60 years, and not 62 years. THE said writ petition in view of the said order was suitably amended by the First Respondent.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the said writ petition holding that the First Respondent belonged to the academic category. The appellant is, thus, before us.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.