The case of the appellant is that it got a telephonic companymunication from the Ministry on or about 14th October 1998 that the increase in the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years is companyfined to the case of Assistant Registrar level and the officers above.
In the background of such a plea of discrimination, the second respondent, by its further companymunication dated 24.4.2000, clarified that since the members of the staff of various I.I.Ts are classified into 3 categories namely, i academic ii technical and iii administrative and others and since Librarians are falling in the categories of the academic staff, their age of retirement would be 62 years.
The companysistent case of the appellant before the High Court was that age of retirement of only those employees was enhanced who companyld be treated at par with the teachers.
On 16.2.2000 a further clarification was given by the second respondent to the Director of the appellant that the increase in the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years would be applicable only to those categories of employees of I.I.Ts, I.Ms and I.I.Sc who are being treated at par with the teachers and whose age of superannuation was 60 years.
In the affidavit filed by the appellant before the High Court they have reiterated that they are bound by the companymunication from the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India dated 30.3.1999 and also one dated 24.4.2000.
As per Statute 13 of I.I.T., the respondent was due to retire on 31.08.2000 on attaining the age of 60 years.
The issuance of clarification was by the second respondent, the Central Government.
Being aggrieved by the said memorandum dated 17.7.2000 respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.
Another companymunication was issued on 31st August, 1998 by the Department of Education, Ministry of H.R.D. to the Director of the I.I.T. with regard to increase in the age of superannuation of academic staff including personnel of Registry, Library and Physical Education.
S.H. Bakre, Assistant Registrar to companytinue in service, who was due to retire on 31st August 1998.
Accordingly, it is clarified that the increase in the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years indicated in this Ministry letter of even number dated 31st August, 1998 as stated above would be applicable only to those categories of employees of IITs, IIMs and IISc who are being treated at par with the teachers and whose age of superannuation was 60 years.
Since Mr. Bakre was an Assistant Registrar and was due to retire on 31.8.1998 the benefit of increased age was extended to him, pending clarification about the age of retirement from the second respondent.
In seeking such a clarification, the Director was informed by the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development that a clarification would be sent shortly.
Thereafter, by an office order issued by the Registrars office, I.I.T. Kanpur, dated 14.07.1998, the age of retirement was increased from 58 to 60 years with effect from 30.05.1998.
Thereupon, the appellant sought clarification from the Ministry about the term Personnel of Registry, Library and Physical Education Staff.
The Board after a brief discussion decided as under Those Assistant Registrars who are in service beyond 60 years will retire on December 31, 2000.
In the meantime, the case of another Assistant Registrar, namely Shri S.K. Gupta, who was to retire on 31.3.1999, came up for companysideration and the then Director of I.I.T. sought clarification from the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
On 27.07.1998, the Ministry of Human Resource Development addressed to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, and forwarded to the Vice Chancellors of all Central Universities, Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education and Secretary of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, providing therein that the age of superannuation of University and College teachers would be 62 years with the liberty reserved to the Universities and Colleges to re employ superannuated teachers within the existing guidelines framed by the U.G.C. The respondent No.1 claims his entitlement to companytinue till 62 years of age on the basis of this companymunication.
Librarian and Deputy Librarian will retire on companypleting 62 years, in view of MHRD clarification.
A decision with respect to Physical Education Instructors Class A will be taken once a clarification is received from the MHRD.
1 Shri Raja Ram Verma was appointed to the post of Assistant Registrar at Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur hereinafter I.I.T. on 11.11.1983.
This was done in respect of members of Groups A, B and C number faculty who had been appointed on or after 23.06.1989.
In the absence of any clarification, the Director decided that till further clarification is received from the Ministry, Shri S.K. Gupta may companytinue.
Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the appellant in its meeting held on 22.5.2000, on companysideration of the companymunication dated 24.4.2000 from the second respondent came to the following companyclusion The Board was informed of the outcome of the discussions at the IITs Directors meeting held on 9th April, 2000.
Thereafter, the I.I.T. companyncil met on 20.2.1999 and decided that the age of superannuation of staff members of I.I.Ts except faculty and scientific design staff in Group A category would companytinue to be 60 years, as in the case of the Central Government employees.
Thereupon, the appellant allowed one Shri.
GANGULY, J. The Respondent No.
However, if a person reaches 62 years before that date, he will retire at the end of the month in which he companypletes 62 years.
However, Shri S.H. Bakre was number allowed to companytinue since his date of superannuation was 31.8.2000.
01.01.1986.
However, on 30.3.1999 itself a companymunication was received from the Ministry of Human Resource Development giving the clarification and in paragraph 5 of the said clarification it was provided as under Attention of this Ministry has, however, been drawn to the fact that the position stated in para 4 above requires clarification.
In view of the aforesaid clarification by the second respondent, a grievance was raised about alleged discrimination between the members of faculty staff and those members of staff who are categoried as number faculty staff.
Thereafter, the Chairman of the Board of Governors approved the proposal of the Director, wherein it was proposed that the staff, whose age of retirement was 58 years, would superannuate on attaining 60 years and the members of the staff whose age of retirement at the time of appointment was 60 years, would superannuate on attaining 62 years.
