Miss Raj Soni v. Air Officer In-Charge AIR 1990 SC 1305

MISS RAJ SONI V. AIR OFFICER IN-CHARGE

Whether the petitioner, as an existing employee prior to the enforcement of the Delhi Education Act, 1973, and Rules, was entitled to retire at the age of 60 years instead of 58 years as determined by the school management?
Whether the respondent school, despite being a private and unaided institution, was legally bound to uniformly apply statutory provisions under the Delhi Education Act and Rules to its employees?

Statutory provisions governing service conditions, including retirement age, are binding on recognized private schools, regardless of whether they are aided or unaided, and such provisions must be applied uniformly.
Existing employees are entitled to retain the more favorable service conditions, such as a higher retirement age, provided under prior applicable frameworks, and any deviation is impermissible under the statutory framework.

The petitioner, Miss Raj Soni, was appointed as a teacher in the Air Force Central School, New Delhi, in 1956.
Initially employed on a five-year contract, her service was renewed for another five years in 1961, after which she continued as a regular employee.
The Delhi Education Code, 1965, which governed the conditions of service for school teachers, prescribed 60 years as the age of superannuation.
In 1973, the Delhi Education Act and Delhi Education Rules came into force, fixing the retirement age at 58 years for teachers in recognized private schools. However, existing employees were entitled to retain the higher retirement age of 60 years if previously applicable.
The petitioner was made to retire on October 31, 1981, upon attaining the age of 58 years, contrary to her claim of entitlement to retire at 60 years under the provisions of the Code and Act.
The school management, while denying her claim, stated that it followed the practice of retiring teachers at 58 years, with certain exceptions.
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, asserting that her retirement violated her statutory rights under the Delhi Education Act and the rules, and that she was discriminated against compared to similarly situated employees.

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to retire at the age of 60 years as per the Delhi Education Code, which was accepted and followed by the school before the enactment of the Delhi Education Act and Rules.
The provisions of the Act and Rules mandated uniform application, and the school management, being under a statutory obligation, could not defy these provisions or selectively retire employees at different ages.
The Court rejected the argument that the school’s management was not bound by the statutory rules as it was not a “State” or “authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
The Court found that the school had retired other similarly situated teachers at 60 years but arbitrarily and discriminatorily retired the petitioner at 58 years.
The Court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner her salary and allowances for the additional two years of service, along with recalculating her post-retirement benefits as if she had retired at 60 years.
The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was awarded relief, with costs borne individually by the parties.