The Supreme Court recently ruled that professors who teach until the end of the academic year despite reaching retirement age mid-term are entitled to be compensated for their work beyond retirement
Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta presided over a case where four Calicut University professors appealed their denied post-retirement salary.
They reached the age of 60 (superannuation) on different dates in 2012 (12.11.2012, 01.12.2012, 01.10.2012, and 04.10.2012) and continued working at the university until the academic session's conclusion on 31.03.2013.
The Court did not support the argument that the professors, being aware of their retirement age, should not have worked beyond 60. Instead, it recognized that as academicians, they felt a moral duty to finish the academic session and fulfill their responsibilities until its conclusion.
The argument that the appellants knew their retirement age and shouldn't have worked beyond 60 is not valid. The Court recognizes that, as educators, they felt a moral duty to finish the academic session and serve until its end on 31.03.2013. Therefore, the appellants deserve suitable compensation for this extended period.
It's worth noting that the professors' claims were initially rejected by the authorities, prompting them to seek relief from the High Court. A judgment from a Single Judge Bench favored the professors. The Court noted a longstanding practice and precedent of allowing teachers to work until the end of the academic year, and there was no misrepresentation on the professors' part. Consequently, the court emphatically stated that their salary and allowances cannot be withheld.
In response to the previous judgment, the University took the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, in its contested ruling, stated that Professors cannot be treated as regular employees and are not eligible for any compensation after retirement. In light of this development, the current appeal was submitted.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling made by the High Court's Single Judge Bench. It emphasized that "the appellants were retained in service until the end of the academic session and continued to work beyond their superannuation age.... It is evident that the appellants are entitled to receive their pay and other employment benefits for this extended period."
In light of these considerations, the Court strongly believed that the professors deserved appropriate compensation for their extended service, as mentioned earlier. The Court issued a directive for the salary during the extended period to be paid, including interest at a rate of 6.5% per annum.
Before concluding, the Court also ordered that the amount should not be recovered from the University's employees but should be paid from the University's funds.
The appellants were represented by Adv. Dr. K.M. George, Jogy Scaria (Advocate on Record), and Adv. Chithra P. George.
TAGS: Appellants Representation Adv Dr. K.M. George Jogy Scaria Adv Chithra P. George
