Established Status Quo Brought About By Judgments Interpreting Local/State Laws Should Not Be Lightly Departed From: SC [Read Judgment]

Long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered last week.

The appellants in this case were professors who had approached the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an office order which set out their respective dates of retirement (which were the last dates in the months they attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 65 years).Their case was that they were entitled to continue beyond the last date of the month in which each of them attained the age of  superannuation, till the "30th of June following" in terms of that provision of the University statute. They had relied on a previous judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Dr. Indu Singh v State of Uttarakhand. In its judgment dismissing their writ petition, the High Court observed that Indu Singh could not be considered as a binding authority. Whenever the superannuation of an employee falls within the month of June, in that event, his or her retirement would stand extended till the end of June of that particular month, it held.

In appeal, the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat, referring to the University statutes, observed:

"This court is of the opinion that on a plain interpretation of Statute No. 16.24, including the proviso in question, it is clearly apparent that firstly each teacher attains the age of superannuation on completing 65 years {Statute No. 16.24 (1)}. Secondly, no teacher who attains the age of superannuation has a right or entitlement to reemployment; in fact, the opening expression "No teacher" appears to rule out reemployment of superannuated teachers {Statute No. 16.24 (2)}. Thirdly, and importantly the proviso {to Statute 16.24 (2)} carves out an exception to the main provision, inasmuch as it provides that a teacher whose "date of superannuation does not fall on June 30, shall continue in service till the end of the academic session, that is June 30, following and will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately following his superannuation till June, 30, following."

The court noted that the Uttarakhand High Court and the Allahabad High Court has consistently held that teachers superannuating are to be treated as re-employed or allowed to continue, in the larger interest of the pupils. In this context, the bench added:

"That apart, this court is also of the opinion that if the state or the university wished to depart from the prevailing understanding, appropriate measures could have been taken, putting all the concerned parties to notice, through amendments. In the absence of any such move, the departure from the prevailing understanding through a discordant judgment, as the impugned judgment is, injects uncertainty. Long ago, this court had underlined this aspect while ruling that long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from, even by this Court, in Raj Narain Pandey v Sant Prasad Tewari & Ors"

Setting aside the High Court order, the bench held that the appellant teachers are entitled, to continue till the end of the following June on re-employment. 

Case:NAVIN CHANDRA DHOUNDIYAL vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3493/2020]

Coram: Justices UU Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat

Counsel: Adv Gaurav Gupta and Adv Vanshaja Shukla 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment