Article 14 parity in retirement age fails where teachers are governed by different service regimes and statutes.

Teachers of three State engineering colleges could not claim parity in superannuation age with teachers of Bihar College of Engineering, Patna, because the two groups were governed by different recruitment processes, service rules and statutory regimes. The State college teachers were government servants under the Bihar Service Code, while the university teachers were recruited through the University Service Commission and governed by the Patna University Act. Article 14 did not compel equal retirement age where a rational basis existed for the distinction. The claim for parity, and the related demands for arrears and benefits, was rejected; the High Court's contrary direction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the teachers of the three State engineering colleges were entitled to have their age of superannuation brought on par with the age of retirement applicable to university teachers of Bihar College of Engineering, Patna, and to consequential arrears and benefits.

Analysis: The teachers of the three State colleges were government servants recruited through the Bihar Public Service Commission and governed by the Bihar Service Code, while the teachers of Bihar College of Engineering, Patna were university teachers recruited through the University Service Commission and governed by the Patna University Act. The two sets of teachers were subject to different recruitment processes, service rules and statutory regimes. In those circumstances, they could not be treated as similarly placed for the purpose of claiming parity in the age of retirement. The invocation of Article 14 was therefore misplaced because the distinction had a rational basis.

Conclusion: The claim for parity in superannuation age was rejected, and the consequential claim for arrears and benefits was also rejected.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's direction granting parity in retirement age and related monetary benefits was set aside, and the State's challenge succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 14 does not require parity between employees governed by different service regimes where there is a rational basis for distinction in recruitment, service conditions and governing statute.

---