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 ...

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...