Case ID: 6759

Judgment:
tition (C) No. 118 of 1987. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. O.P. Sharma	 K.R. Gupta	 Vivek Sharma	 R.C. Gubrele and Ms. Nanita Sharma for the Petitioners. M. Chander Sekhran	 Additional Solicitor General I	 P. Parmeshwaran	 section N. Terda	 Ms. Kitty Kumaramangalam	 Ms. A. Subhashini and Ms. Sangeeta Aggarwal for the Respondents. 837 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH	 J. B.P. Singh and nine other teachers employed in the schools run by the Ordnance Factories at Kanpur and Muradnagar	 have filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging their retirement from service on attaining the age of 58 years. They claim that they are entitled to have the age of superannuation fixed at 60 years instead of 58 years. Mr. O.P. Sharma	 learned counsel appearing for the petitioners	 has contended that the age of superannuation of the teachers working in the schools controlled by various departments of Government of India other than the Defence Department has been enhanced to 60 years and according to him there is no justification to single out the teachers working in the schools run by the Ordnance Factories under the control of the Defence Department of Government of India Mr. Sharma has relied upon a Memorandum issued by the Government of India	 Ministry of Education dated September 6	 1983 by which the age of Retirement of Delhi School Teachers and teachers in other Union Territories was raised to 60 years. He has also relied on a Memorandum dated March 9	 1984 issued by the Railway Board wherein the age of superannuation of the teachers working in the Railway schools was also enhanced to 60 years. Mr. Sharma has thus argued that the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioners at the age of 58 years whereas retaining similarly situated teachers working in other departments of Government of India upto the age of 60 Years	 is discriminatory and as such violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Prima facie there seems to be force in the argument but in view of the Office Memorandum dated March 10	 1989 issued by the Government of India	 Ministry of Personnel	 New Delhi	 it is not necessary to examine the same. Shri N. Siva Subramaniam	 Joint Secretary	 Ministry of Defence has	 alongwith an additional affidavit dated March 16	 1989 filed the said Memorandum in this court which is reproduced hereunder: "As the Ministry of Human Resource Development etc. are aware	 the age of superannuation for all Central Government employees	 save with the exception of a few categories	 has been fixed at 58 years and they are to retire on the last day of the month in which they attain that age. 838 However	 there is no uniformity in the age of superannuation of teachers in various schools/institutions in the Central Government. In the light of the observations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission regarding the age of retirement of Central Government employees	 the Government has reviewed the entire question de novo and it has now been decided that the age of retirement on superannuation of all teachers working in Central Government Departments and Organisations including Union Territories may be uniformly fixed at 58 years	 whether they are in the Ministry of Education	 Ministry of Railways	 Ministry of Defence or any other Ministry/Department or in Delhi Administration. Consequently	 in schools/institutions where the age of retirement on superannuation for teachers in presently fixed at 58 years	 no change is required to be made and the incumbents as well as future recruits shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years. However	 in regard to schools/institutions where the age of retirement on superannuation for teachers is presently fixed at 60 years/the same shall be lowered to 58 years w.e.f. 1st April	 1989 with the exception that the teachers who had joined such schools/institutions prior to this date	 shall continue to enjoy the existing benefit and superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years. Further	 in respect of such schools/institutions	 no new appointment	 either on regular or ad hoc basis	 shall be made between the date of this Office Memorandum and 1.4.1989. " It is thus obvious that with effect from April 1	 1989 the age of superannuation of all teachers working in Central Government Departments and Organisations including Union Territories has been uniformly fixed at 58 years. The only argument advanced by Mr. Sharma has	 thus	 been completely answered by the above quoted Office Memorandum. The Writ Petition is	 therefore	 dismissed with no order as to costs. V.P.R. Petition dismissed.

Summary:
In the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India	 the petitioners teachers	 employed in the schools run by the respondents	 controlled by the Defence Department of the Government of India	 contended that the action of the respondents in retiring them at the age of 58 years	 whereas retaining similarly situated teachers working in other departments upto the age of 60 years was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents filed the Office Memorandum dated 10.3.1989 issued by the Ministry of Personnel	 wherein it was stated that the age of retirement of the teachers working in all the Departments and Organisations was uniformly fixed at 58 years. Dismissing the petition	 this Court	 HELD: With effect from April 1	 1989 the age of superannuation of all teachers working in Central Government Departments and Organisations including Union Territories has been uniformly fixed at 58 years. [838F]