Back
ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Md Arshad Ekbal – Appellant
Versus
Maulana Azad Natitonal Urdu University – Respondent
Anil Kumar Sinha, J. – The petitioner has preferred the present writ application for quashing the letter no. 1098 dated 05.11.2024 issued by the respondent no. 4 whereby the petitioner has been informed that the petitioner would superannuate on 28.02.2025 on attaining the age of superannuation of sixty years. Further it has been informed that recovery of excess payment on revision of pay on conversion from “Other Academic Staff” to “Non Teaching” staff is also pending and the petitioner was requested to submit APARs of previous five years for taking necessary action to award financial upgradation under MACP before retirement.
2. The petitioner basically has challenged his age of superannuation in the present writ application on the ground that the post on which the petitioner was working i.e. Regional Director is a teaching post but the respondents authority has treated the post as Non Teaching and made the petitioner to retire at the age of sixty years which is the retirement age of Non Teaching employees whereas retirement age of teaching employees is 65 years.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ application is that Maulana Azad National Urdu University (hereinafter
The classification of the petitioner as a Non-Teaching employee is upheld, confirming a retirement age of sixty, as per UGC guidelines and university policy.
The age of superannuation for university staff is determined by the institution's regulations, which must be consciously adopted, not automatically applied from UGC guidelines.
Physical education directors are categorized as non-teaching staff under University Ordinances, retaining a superannuation age of 62, despite claims of being treated as teachers for benefit purposes.
The main legal point established is that the superannuation age for a petitioner holding a teaching position should be determined in accordance with the applicable notification and regulations, with ....
Person appointed as visiting professor on honorary basis, could not claim the financial benefits of the salaried employee of the University as a Lecturer or other teachers of the University.
Person appointed as visiting professor on honorary basis, could not claim the financial benefits of the salaried employee of the University as a Lecturer or other teachers of the University.
The principle of treating equals equally and unequals unequally was central to the court's decision in rejecting the petitioner's claim for superannuation at the age of 65 years and re-fixation of pa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
