P.J. Dharmaraj vs. Church of South India (2024 INSC 938)

P.J. DHARMARAJ vs. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA & ORS.
2024 INSC 938
(CIVIL APPEAL /14029/2024)

06 DECEMBER 2024

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

The case revolves around the appellant’s claim for retirement at the age of 65, arguing for the applicability of amended UGC and AICTE regulations. Below is a breakdown of the judgment’s reasoning:

Key Issues:

1. Whether the appellant, as Director of CSIIT, is entitled to the enhanced retirement age of 65 years as per the amended UGC and AICTE regulations.
2. Whether the amended regulations of UGC and AICTE automatically apply to CSIIT, a self-financing minority educational institution affiliated with a university governed by the State of Telangana.

Court’s Findings:

1. Non-Adoption of Amended Regulations by State Government:
   • The State Government of Andhra Pradesh (later Telangana) decided not to adopt the amended UGC and AICTE regulations enhancing the retirement age to 65 years for teachers.
   • CSIIT, being an institution affiliated with a state university, follows the retirement age prescribed by the State Government, which remains at 60 years.
2. Nature of the Institution:
   • CSIIT is a self-financing, minority educational institution not funded or run by the Central Government.
   • The institute’s governing body has not independently adopted the enhanced retirement age of 65 years.
3. Role and Status of the Appellant:
   • The appellant, as Director, was primarily involved in administrative duties, not in teaching or classroom-related activities.
   • AICTE and UGC regulations pertain specifically to teachers, defined as those actively engaged in teaching roles. The appellant did not lead evidence proving that he fulfilled such a role.
4. Potential Anomalies and Discrimination:
   • Allowing the appellant to retire at 65 years while other teachers in the university system retire at 60 would result in inequality and discrimination.
   • Uniformity in retirement age across institutions affiliated with the same university is essential to maintain fairness.
5. Appellant’s Acceptance of Retirement:
   • After receiving the notice of superannuation at the age of 60, the appellant continued to make representations for retirement benefits, suggesting acceptance of the retirement age.
   • The position of Director has already been filled by a successor, respondent No.4, who is performing the duties.

Finding:

The court held that the appellant’s claim for enhancement of the retirement age to 65 years is not tenable, as:

• The State Government has not adopted the amended UGC and AICTE regulations.
• CSIIT, as an affiliated institution, is bound by the State-prescribed retirement age.
• The appellant does not qualify as a teacher under the scope of the UGC and AICTE regulations.

The appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed by both the Single Judge and Division Bench, and no interference is warranted.

Case Law

Islamic Academy of Education and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 474 : (2003) 6 SCC 697; Sreejith P.S. v. Rajasree M.S. and Ors. [2022] 18 SCR 252 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473; Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors. [2015] 3 SCR 467 : (2015) 6 SCC 363; Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University and Ors. [2015] 10 SCR 1049 : (2015) 16 SCC 530; T.M.A Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. [2002] Supp. 3 SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC 481 – distinguished.