M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to enforce notification dated 24.12.199X (P -1) issued by the University Grants Commission -respondent No. 2 (for brevity, 'the UGC') as a whole by raising the age of superannuation of teachers working in Government Colleges. A further prayer has been made for quashing notification dated 13.5.1999 (P -5) issued by the respondent State of Haryana providing for the age of retirement of the lecturers working in the Government Colleges at the age of 58 years.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner who has been working as a Lecturer (College Cadre) in the respondent State of Haryana, had attained the age of superannuation of 58 years and retired as, such on 30.6.1999. The claim for the petitioner is that the recommendations made by the UGC for raising the retirement age of lecturer in the colleges to 60 years must be implemented by the respondent. State of Haryana and, therefore, the notification issued by the respondent State dated 13.5.1999 (P -5) maintaining the age of superannuation at 58 years is liable to be set aside. Mr. S.K. Sud, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued on the basis of the recommendations made by the UGC, vide its letter dated 24.12.1998 (P -1) that the universities and colleges must adopt the uniform standards with regard to pay scale, mode of recruitment and qualification of teaching staff at various level. In Para 16 the question of superannuation and re -employment of teachers has also been referred to and the recommendations made are that the teachers are to retire at the age of 62 years leaving it open to the university to re -employ a teacher up to the age of 65 years. In Para 16.2 the age of retirement for other employees in the university has also been specified. Learned Counsel has then made a reference to certain other portions of the recommendations of the UGC and submitted that these recommendations are binding on the Central, as well as the State Governments. The basis of his argument is that the education is a subject which figure in Entry 66 of Union List referred in Article 246 of the Constitution. According to him, once such recommendations have been made, it must be considered as a Central Legislation binding on the State by virtue of Entry 66 of the Union List. In support of his submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dhyaneshwar Shikshan Sinistra Mahavidyalaya, 2006 (3) RSJ 604. He has also submitted that the respondent State Government has adopted the Scheme with regard to pay scale and the standard of education by passing the notification as per the recommendations made and once a part of the Scheme has been accepted then the respondent State was under obligation to accept the same as a whole. Another argument raised is that there is discrimination between the lecturers employed by the private aided colleges and the respondent State of Haryana. The private college lecturers are retired at the age of 60, who have been granted grant -in -aid to the extent of 95%, whereas the lecturers in Government Colleges are retired at the age of 58 years. Lastly, learned Counsel made a reference to the recommendations made by the Rastogi Commission for enhancing the age of retirement.
(3.) MR . Harish Rathee, learned State Counsel has made a reference to the provisions of Rule 3.26 of the Civil Service Rules Volume -I and argued that the age of retirement for all public servants in the respondent State is 58 years and the recommendations made by the UGC after thorough consideration have been partially accepted as per the notification dated 13.5.1999 (P -5). The age of retirement has been maintained at 58 years. Learned Counsel has further submitted that lecturers working in the private colleges are not persons similarly situated to that of the petitioner as the lecturer working in the private colleges governed by a separate set of rules and, therefore, there cannot be any breach of equality clause if the conditions of service of both cadres are different.;