SC: Enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 65 years under UP Govt. notification is prospective; teachers already superannuated cannot claim benefit

Case Name: Chandra Mohan Varma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
Date of Judgment: JANUARY 21, 2020
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 350–351 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12714–12715 of 2019)

Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Held: The Supreme Court held that the Uttar Pradesh Government’s notification dated 6 February 2015 enhancing the age of retirement of medical teachers from 60 to 65 years operated only prospectively, and did not extend benefits to those who had already attained the age of superannuation before its issuance. A teacher continuing in service beyond 60 years only by virtue of the “session benefit” under the 2012 Government Order was not deemed to be in regular service so as to avail the higher retirement age.

Summary: The appellant, Professor of Cardiology at GSVM Medical College, Kanpur, attained the age of superannuation at 60 on 13 August 2014, but was allowed to continue till 30 June 2015 under the session benefit GO dated 19 November 2012. During this extended tenure, the State issued a notification on 6 February 2015 enhancing the retirement age to 65. The appellant sought continuation until 65, but the High Court rejected his plea, holding that the notification was contrary to Fundamental Rule 56 and inapplicable to him. On appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that the notification was a special order permissible under Rule 26 of the 1990 Rules and not ultra vires. However, it emphasized that the enhancement of retirement age was prospective, benefitting only those medical teachers who had not yet retired as on 6 February 2015. Since the appellant had already retired in August 2014 and his continuance was only under session benefit, he could not claim extension up to 65 years. Reliance on Ram Vir Sharma and other precedents was distinguished, as those provisions contained deeming extensions unlike the conditional GO of 2012.

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Appellant held not entitled to continue until 65. Court directed that his terminal benefits be computed and released within two months.