HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.20760 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition being an old writ petition came up for hearing on 15.06.2010. After hearing the learned standing counsel for the first respondent – Osmania University, who brought to my notice that this issue has since been covered by a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in B.Bharat Kumar v. Osmania University[1], I directed the matter to be listed on 17.06.2010 to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to make his submissions. On 17.06.2010, a request was made to adjourn the case to 21.06.2010. However, the matter has now come up. Today also, a request is made at 10.30 A.M. on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking adjournment of the above case. Since this is an old matter and the learned standing counsel has already drawn my attention to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, referred to supra, I declined to grant adjournment. Now when the matter is taken up, none is present to represent the writ petitioners. The three petitioners have retired as superintendents, in the non-teaching cadre of the first respondent – Osmania University. They retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. On the ground that the first respondent – Osmania University has enhanced the age of superannuation of its teaching members to 60 years, they now contend that, in terms of Section 38(1) of the Osmania University Act, 1959, they are also entitled to be continued in service till they attain the age of 60 years. Hence they instituted this writ petition. As is noticed supra, the entire plea of the writ petitioners is that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years, on par with the members of teaching faculty of Osmania University, is rested upon the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Osmania University v. V. S. Muthurangam[2]. It will be appropriate to notice what the Supreme Court has pointed out in paragraph 8 of the judgment: “…….The nature of duties to be performed by the teaching and non-teaching staff of the University are also different. Therefore, apart 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. There was impelling necessity for the University to change the age of superannuation of the teaching staff in order to give effect to the recommendations 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 different conditions become necessary for the exigency of the administration 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 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 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……….” However, the Supreme Court has held that it would be desirable to have uniform age of superannuation for the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Osmania University and hence, the finding of the High Court was held as justified. However, in B.Bharat Kumar (1 supra), the very question as to whether the non-teaching staff should be allowed the same age of superannuation as that of the teaching staff has fallen for consideration. That question has been answered holding that it is perfectly legitimate for the University to have come up with different ages of superannuation for different classes of employees. It is appropriate to notice what the Supreme Court in para 19 of the judgment in B.Bharat Kumar (1 supra) has observed: “19. Learned Counsel also argue, to a great extent, the desirability of the age of superannuation being raised to 60 or 62 as the case may be. We again reiterate that it is not for this Court to formulate a policy as to what the age of retirement should be as by doing so we would be trailing into the dangerous area of the wisdom of the Legislation. If the State Government in its discretion, which is permissible to it under the scheme, decides to restrict the age and not increase it to 60 or as the case may be 62, it was perfectly justified into doing so.” As was already noticed supra, non-teaching staff form into a separate class by themselves and they cannot claim parity, as a matter of right, in the matter of age of superannuation with the teaching staff. Therefore, in B.Bharat Kumar (1 supra), the plea raised with regard to enhanced age of superannuation in so far as non-teaching staff to bring uniformity in the service of the Osmania University has been repelled. In view of the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in B.Bharat Kumar (1 supra), I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. But, however, without costs. NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Date:28.06.2010 usd [1] 2007 SUPREME (3) 1055 [2] AIR 1997 SC 2758