IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J.
Dr. R.N. Sharma (Ram Nivas Sharma), S/o. Late Shri Santoshi Lal Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of Higher Education & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No. 5882 of 2021
Decided On : 16-01-2024
Superannuation - Teaching Position - 1987 Adhiniyam, 2009 Regulations - [1987 Adhiniyam, 2009 Regulations, 2007 Notification] - The court discussed the applicability of the 2009 Regulations and the 2007 Notification in determining the superannuation age for a petitioner holding a teaching position. It highlighted the interpretation of the regulations and notification, emphasizing that the petitioner's services were governed by the 1987 Adhiniyam and that he should be retired at the age of 65 years as per the 2007 Notification.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist, was retired at the age of 62 despite a notification increasing the superannuation age to 65 for teaching positions. The petitioner sought restoration of services till the age of 65.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was holding a teaching position on the cut-off date mentioned in the notification and that the 2009 Regulations did not apply retrospectively to the petitioner's services.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the petitioner's superannuation age based on the applicable regulations and notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, being in a teaching position, should be retired at the age of 65 as per the 2007 Notification, and that the 2009 Regulations did not have retrospective effect on the petitioner's services.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the university to restore the petitioner's services till the age of 65 and provide all consequential benefits.
ORDER :
1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 6.8.2021 (Annexure P1), the instant petition has been moved by the Petitioner.
2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist by Respondent 2/University on 6.8.1988. As per the applicable statute, his appointment was on a teaching post and he imparted teaching. As per the channel of promotion, he was promoted to the post of Professor/Principal Scientist and was also posted at different places. On 15.3.2007 also, the Petitioner was holding a teaching post and was posted at Jagdalpur. The Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Service Regulations for Recruitment and Upgradation of Teachers/Equivalent Cadre and Administrative Posts, 2009 (henceforth ‘2009 Regulations’) was brought into force with effect from 17.8.2010 and prior to that the Petitioner was appointed/promoted as Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist and after 2009 Regulations he was designated as Associate Professor/Senior Scientist on 4.7.2012. He also got promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme on 20.9.2012. On 24.3.2009 (Annexure P5), he and his colleagues, namely, Dr. Hemant Kumar Awasthi and Dr. R.U. Khan were appointed as Programme Coordinator at Krishi Vigyan Kendra of Respondent 2/University. Both Dr. Hemant Kumar Awasthi and Dr. R.U. Khan, who were aged about 64 years at the time of filing of the instant writ petition, were working with Respondent 2/University. In the similar circumstances, Dr. Smt. Kiran Gupta, Dr. J.S. Urkurkar and Dr. C.R. Gupta, who were also appointed as Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist, have continued to work till the age of 65 years and have been retired from services after attaining the age of 65 years. Vide notification dated 23.3.2007 (Annexure P8), the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education enhanced the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years for teaching positions on regular appointment against sanctioned posts. The Petitioner, who was appointed on a teaching position, in his entire career, remained connected with teaching position. Therefore, as per the notification dated 23.3.2007, he should have been retired on his attaining the age of 65 years. But, Respondent 2/University retired him on completion of 62 years only. In his first round of litigation, he preferred a petition, being Writ Petition (S) No.2694 of 2021, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.6.2021 directing him to make a fresh representation to Respondent 2/University. He made a representation, which has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 6.8.2021 (Annexure P1). Hence, the instant petition.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the post of the Petitioner was a Professor/Senior Scientist and was a teaching position on regular appointment against a sanctioned post. On 15.3.2007, i.e., the cut off date, as mentioned in the notification dated 23.3.2007 (Annexure P8), the Petitioner was working with Respondent 2/University connected with teaching position. Therefore, on this ground only, the Petitioner is entitled to get superannuation on the date of his attaining the age of 65 years.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent 2/University submitted that vide order dated 24.3.2009 the Petitioner was appointed as a Programme Coordinator in Krishi Vigyan Kendra and he continued to work there till his retirement, i.e., 31.5.2021. However, the name of Programme Coordinator has been changed to Senior Scientist and Head and the same is not a teaching post. As per 2009 Regulations, the posts of Krishi Vigyan Kendra(s) are non-teaching posts and services of the persons working in Krishi Vigyan Kendra(s) are not transferable to the teaching and research services. Therefore, the Petitioner has been rightly superannuated at the age of 62 years. With regard to Dr. Hemant Kumar Awasthi and Dr. R.U. Khan, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel that on 2.2.2012 Dr. Heman
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 ....
The court established that the definition of 'Teacher' under the Uttar Pradesh University Act includes the petitioner, entitling him to retirement benefits at 65 years.
Age of retirement – Teachers of affiliated Institute cannot have their age of retirement more than that of teachers of affiliating University
The court established that teaching staff have a right to enforce the statutory age of superannuation of 65 years, as per the University Grants Commission regulations.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.