Skip to main content

No retirement age at minority institutes

In a landmark judgment, Gujarat high court has ruled that the government's norms for retirement for employees do not apply to minority-run educational institutions.
Such institutes can engage the services of its employees beyond the age of superannuation, which is 60 years, till the employees are mentally and physically fit. The only requirement is that employees must have this certified by medical authorities.
Justice J B Pardiwala restrained the state government from any interference and observed that it must continue to pay grants towards salaries of such senior employees, that the institute feels can serve the best interests of students and the community.
The high court said that the grant-in code cannot prevail over regulations for running minority institutions. If the government interferes in selection, taking action or making the staff - both teaching and non-teaching - retire, it is in clear violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which protects and confers autonomy on minority run educational institutions.
The HC order came in response to a petition filed by a minority institute, HB Kapadia Education Trust, which used to run New High School in Ahmedabad's walled city area. It principal, Hasmukh Kapadia, was due to retire in 2001, and the government extended his term till he turned 60. The institute wanted to have the principal stay on and insisted that the government continue to pay his salary because it was a grant-in-aid school.
The school closed in 2012. Justice Pardiwala ordered the state government to pay the full salary for 2001 to 2012 to Kapadia within three months.
Justifying its conclusion that minority institutes cannot be interfered with so far as employees' retirement age is concerned, the HC observed, "The object of conferring the right on minorities under Article 30 is to ensure that there will be equality between the majority and the minority. If the minorities do not have such special protection they will be denied equality."
Justice Pardiwala also called for certain regulatory measures in such institutes, "The right conferred on religious minority to administer educational institutions of their choice is not an absolute right, though no restrictions were imposed on the right conferred under Article 30, like the reasonable restrictions placed on Article 19.
Regulatory measures can be made to ensure the appointment of good teachers and their conditions of service, for securing a fair procedure in the matter of disciplinary action against the teachers and for the elimination of a potential cause of insecurity and frustration amongst them."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a