Long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed: SC

The SC on October 16, 2020 {NAVIN CHANDRA DHOUNDIYAL vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.} held that the view of the Uttarakhand High Court, as also the Allahabad High Court (now settled by the full bench decision) consistently have been that teachers superannuating are to be treated as re-employed or allowed to continue, in the larger interest of the pupils, has prevailed. It was held that if the view that found acceptance with the impugned judgment were to prevail, there would be avoidable disruption in teaching; the likely delay in filling vacancies caused mid-session cannot but be to the detriment of the students.

It was observed by the Bench, comprising of Justice U U Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, that if the state or the university wished to depart from the prevailing understanding, appropriate measures could have been taken, putting all the concerned parties to notice, through amendments. It was held that in the absence of any such move, the departure from the prevailing understanding through a discordant judgment, as the impugned judgment is, injects uncertainty. 

The common question which arose for decision in present case before the SC was as to the correct interpretation of a condition in the respondent-University’s statutes regarding the date of superannuation of its teachers.

The SC held that while ruling that long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from, even by this Court

The SC held that the impugned judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside. It was held that the appellants are entitled, consequently, to continue till the end of the following June on re-employment. It was held that if any of them has been superannuated, he or she shall be issued with orders of reinstatement, with full salary for the period they were out of employment, and allowed to continue till the following June, on re-employment basis. The appeals were allowed by the SC.