ORDER
D.H. Nasir, J
1. The question whether a mandamus could be issued directing the 1st respondent-Employer to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of sixty years by virtue of Circular No.CTE/S/83/88/2249, dated 16-8-1988 is required to be decided in this appeal. The learned single Judge was pleased to issue the mandamus as prayed for by the writ petitioner.
2. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed by the 1st respondent. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 1-7-1976 as a teacher in a school run by the1st respondent-company. It was an unaided school. The same is resisted by the company on the ground that the Government Rules apply to all teachers working in the school run by the company. Since the age of retirement in Government was only 58, the petitioner was not entitled to be continued in service or to be retired from service till he attains the age of 60 years. On the other hand the writ petitioner complaints that the company denies to the petitioner and other teachers the benefits such as pension, gratuity etc. which are available to Government teachers in aided schools on the ground that the school run by the Company is not an aided school. The learned single Judge held that if the company was not prepared to give the benefits available to the Government teachers, it was not justified in insisting upon the superannuation age to be 58 years because, other employees of the company could be retired only at the age of 60 years.
3. It is contended by the company that teaching and non-teaching staff in the recognised schools arc governed by the A.P.Education Act and the Rules made thereunder, according to which the retirement age is 58 years. According to the terms of the petitioner's appointment also the superannuation age is 58 years. Under para 3 of the petitioner's appointment order dated 1-7-1976 it is stated that the petitioner in addition to his basic pay, is entitled to other pecuniary benefits as allowed by the State Government to the teachers working in recognised schools. His service conditions such as confirmation, grant of annual increment, leave, travelling allowance etc., are all governed by the rules and regulations issued by the State Government from time to time for the teachers of the recognised schools or as may be stipulated by the 1st respondent company.
4. It is further pointed out on behalf of the company that in Writ Petition No.9586 of 1988, this High Court while dismissing the writ petition on 17-2-1991 observed as follows :
'It appears that the terms of the order dated 8th June, 1978 prescribing that the age of retirement shall be as per State Government rules in force from time to time applicableto educational institutions lend support to the submission that the teaching and non-teaching staff in the schools established by the Singareni Collieries should have the same age of superannuation as applicable to the teachers in Government or aided schools.
The alternative suggestion by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there can as well be a different age of retirement as in private institutions as determined by the contract between the parties cannot be of any avail to the petitioner since no such specific contract relating to the age of superannuation was brought to my notice. I am inclined to hold that the former construction is one of the feasible alternatives - particularly in view of absence of any such contract as in the case of employment of private institutions.'
5. It was further urged on behalf of the company that the retirement age of teachers working in both aided and unaided posts was the same i.e., 58 years as per the A.P.Education Rules. A committee was constituted by the Chairman and Managing Director to examine the service conditions of the school staff, which recommended that the A.P.Education Rules should be applicable to all aided and recognised schools. It was also brought to the notice of the company that unaided staff till such time, as they were admitted to grant-in-aid or the school was not taken over by the Government, they should be allowed to avail the facilities offered by the Company i.e., the Coal Mines Provident Fund, L.T.C. facility, rent free accommodation, supply of coal/gas for domestic use free of cost, free medical facilities to the teachers and their family members, which facilities were not available to the teachers not working in other than aided/recognised schools.
6. It is true that the appointment letter of the petitioner dated 1-7-76 provides for pecuniary benefits for the teachers working in recognised schools and that the service conditions in respect of confirmation, grant of annual increments, leave, sick leave, travelling allowance and deamess allowance etc., to be extended according to the rules and regulationsfrom time to time issued by the Government of A.P., for the teachers of recognised schools or as stipulated by the company. It also provides for residential accommodation, Free medical aid and company's Hospitals as per rules. The terms of this appointment order have not been challenged by the petitioner till the present petition was filed. The fact that the Writ Petition No.9586 of 1988 filed by H.D.Prasad Rao who was appointed as teacher in one of the Schools established by the Singareni Collieries was dismissed after making observations as already extracted above was not unknown to the company. On the superannuation notice intimating to the petitioner that he would be retiring on 6-8-1994 as he would be attaining the age of 58 years on that day, no interim direction appears to have been obtained by the petitioner and, therefore, there is no question that he would have been continuing in service even after his age of superannuation of 6-8-1994. As far as the applicability of the rules is concerned, the circular dated 16-8-1988 already referred to above, it was abundantly made clear that-
'The Company generally follows the A.P.Education Rules applicable to Aided/ Recognised Schools. Any variance (e.g. Coal Mines Provident Fund, Rent Free Quarters, free supply of fuel, free medical facilities, L.T.C. facility, Gratuity, protected water and electricity. Festival Advance, Bus Facility, opportunity to come into Company's service, Janata Accident and Group Insurance Scheme etc.) presently in vogue will hence forth be brought in line with the A.P.Education Rules. In respect of unaided, staff till such time they are admitted to Grant-in-aid or till the schools are taken over by the Government they will continue to avail the facilities presently offered by the Company and as amended from time to time.'
7. In the case of Miss. Raj Soni v. Air Officer In Charge Administration, : [1990]2SCR412 , the Supreme Court held that every institution must frame and follow a uniform rule for superannuating its employees, the Age of superannuation could not be left to thewhims of the employer to enable him to retire different employees at different ages. The Supreme Court further held that in the absence of any regulation, Bye-law or policy-decision by the respondent-management regarding the age of superannuation, it became necessary to accept the petitioner's contention that prior to the coming into force of the Act and the Rules the management was following the Delhi Education Code which provided 60 years as the age of superannuation for the School teachers and in that view of the matter, the Supreme Court held that under Rule 110 of the Rules, the petitioner being an existing employee was entitled to retire at the age of 60 years.
8. However, the Supreme Court was concerned with a different set of facts in the above decision. The petitioner before the Supreme Court in the above case retired from the post of teacher in the Air Force Central School, New Delhi on her attaining the age of 58 years. The school was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner claimed that under the Delhi Education Code read with the Delhi Education Act, 1973, the age of superannuation for the teachers who joined service before the Act coming into force was 60 years and as such the management of the school acted arbitrarily in depriving her of two years of service and consequential benefits.
9. It is evident from the above facts that depriving the petitioner of two years service put in by her before the Delhi Education Code read with the Delhi Education Act, 1973 came into force was held arbitrary. In the case before us the petitioner joined service in 1976 and in his appointment order itself it was stated that the age of superannuation would be 58 years. There was, therefore, no deprivation of any right earned by the petitioner on the date of his joining which was defeated on account of any subsequent event. In the case before us the petitioner claims such right on the basis of the rights available to the teachers in Government schools and aided schools, but it cannot be ignored at the same time that many pecuniary benefits were enjoyed by himin addition to the perquisites enjoyed by such other teachers. The ratio emerging from the decision of the Supreme Court in the above case cited before us is to the effect that any event happening subsequent to appointment cannot be allowed to produce any prejudicial effect on the terms and conditions of service. The same is not found to have been violated and no detrimental effect is created on the terms and conditions of service subject to which the petitioner was appointed in 1976.
10. In Assam Madhyamik Sikshak Aru Karmachari Santha v. State of Assam, : AIR1996SC2257 , the question before the Supreme Court was that the persons who continued as teachers on appointed day, nawely October 1, 1977 and those who remained in service till attaining 60 years be treated as Government employees entitled to the benefits of pension. The admitted position was that they had already withdrawn their C.P.F. which was due to them after attaining their age of 60 years. The Supreme Court, therefore, directed that the teachers who have withdrawn the CPF should redeposit the same to the credit of the Government and on such deposit being made, the State was directed to treat them at par with the second category of teachers as per the draft Rules and to treat them as if they were the Government teachers on the appointed day and on that basis they would be entitled to pensionary benefits as applicable to all the Government employees who would retire on attaining the age of 58 years and other benefits admissible to them. In the above case before the Supreme Court, it appears that option was given to teachers for retiring at the age of 58 years with pensionary benefits or at the age of 60 years with C.P.F. However, as discussed above the facts before us are totally different and in our opinion the same do not attract the applicability of the ratio emerging from the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court to the facts before us.
11. With the fact situation being as above, it could not be held that the petitioner as a teacher in the 1st respondent school is at any disadvantage. A teacher in the 1st respondent's school cannot legitimately claimadvantages available both to the employees working in the Singareni Collieries on one hand and on the other the advantages available to Government employees. In fact it would be a misnomer to say that the petitioner is at any disadvantage because, the perquisites which the teacher enjoys on par with the employees of the company-are not available to the teachers employed in Government schools or aided schools. If the age of superannuation was a condition of contract in 1976, the same cannot be legitimately sought to be changed by the petitioner at this late stage. If it is so done, the petitioner would stand to enjoy additional advantages which are not available to the regular employees of the Collieries and not even available to the teachers employed in Government schools and in other aided institutions. While claiming equality of treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' would be undermined if the pecuniary benefits available both under the rules and regulations of the 1st respondent and such benefits available to the teachers in Government schools in other aided institutions are taken into account.
12. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the attention of the learned single Judge was either not drawn by the learned Counsel at the hearing of the writ petition or it escaped the attention of the learned single Judge that the petitioner and other teachers employed in the same school would enjoy undue benefits which even the regular employees of the Collieries are not enjoying. In that view of the matter, therefore, we believe no discrimination is caused to the petitioner by the act of the 1st respondent school management in refusing to accept the petitioner's demand as well as the demand made by the incumbents similarly situated.. The learned single Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter.
13. Hence, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. The writ petitions are dismissed, However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.