Uniformity in service conditions requires parity in superannuation age absent genuine administrative necessity or impracticability.

Section 38(1) of the Osmania University Act, 1959 requires uniformity in service conditions only so far as possible, allowing flexibility where genuine administrative necessity or impracticability justifies different treatment. Because teaching and non-teaching staff are distinct categories with different service requirements, differential superannuation ages may be permissible in principle; however, no sufficient justification was shown to deny parity once the teaching staff retirement age was fixed at 60 years. On the facts, extending the same retirement age to non-teaching staff was neither impracticable nor undesirable, so parity in superannuation age was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the age of superannuation of the non-teaching staff of the University had to be raised to 60 years once the age of superannuation of the teaching staff was fixed at 60 years under the mandate of uniformity in service conditions.

Analysis: Section 38(1) of the Osmania University Act, 1959 requires uniformity in the conditions of service of salaried staff only as far as possible, which imports a measure of flexibility. The teaching and non-teaching staff are distinct categories with different duties and service requirements, so differential treatment may be justified where administrative necessity or impracticability is shown. However, there was no legal compulsion to keep the University's teaching staff in lockstep with the State Government's retirement age, and no sufficient reason was shown why parity in the retirement age of teaching and non-teaching staff could not be maintained. Once the teaching staff was granted 60 years, extending the same age to the non-teaching staff was neither impracticable nor undesirable on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The non-teaching staff were also entitled to retire at 60 years, and the High Court's direction granting that parity was .

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the University was bound, on the facts found, to maintain parity in superannuation age between the two categories of salaried staff.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires uniformity in service conditions only as far as possible, differential treatment between distinct employee categories is permissible only when genuine administrative necessity or impracticability justifies it; absent such justification, parity must be maintained.

---