Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Tushar Rao Gedela, JJ.
Sudhir Kumar Taneja – Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
LPA 491 of 2019 and CM APPL.51372 of 2019, 51848 of 2019, 53827 of 2019, 54739 of 2019, 804 of 2020, 8697 of 2020 & 11605 of 2020 & LPA 142 of 2022 and CM APPL. 38798 of 2022
Decided On : 22-05-2023
EC Resolutions - Director of Physical Education - Delhi University Act, 1922, Ordinance XII, Ordinance XVIII, MHRD Circular No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U(i) - The court discussed the EC Resolutions, change in designation, and RTI reply. It also analyzed the applicability of Ordinance XII vis-a'-vis Ordinance XVIII, and the legal/statutory embargo against the enhancement of age of superannuation. The court highlighted the misplacement of reliance on Jitender Singh Naruka, and the denial of the assertion that EC Resolutions were duly approved and notified by the Visitor. The court also discussed the issue of recovery of salary and the denial of similar benefits to the appellants. The judgment reiterates the settled law and dismisses the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, Dr. Meera Sood and Sudhir Kumar Taneja, challenged the impugned orders related to the superannuation of the appellants at the age of 62 years instead of 65 years. The court considered the promotions, redesignation, and age of superannuation of the appellants, and analyzed the EC Resolutions, RTI replies, and the applicability of Ordinance XII and XVIII. The court also discussed the denial of similar benefits to the appellants and the recovery of salary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the promotions under the Merit Promotion Scheme were only financial upgradations and did not constitute substantive promotions. It held that the appellants' substantive post remained the same throughout. The court also found that the EC Resolution No.127 dated 10.11.1990 was not approved by the Visitor, rendering it ineffective. The court reiterated the settled law and dismissed the appeals.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of EC Resolutions, the denial of similar benefits to the appellants, the recovery of salary, and the misplacement of reliance on Jitender Singh Naruka. The court also considered the legal/statutory embargo against the enhancement of age of superannuation and the denial of similar benefits to the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the promotions under the Merit Promotion Scheme were only financial upgradations and did not constitute substantive promotions. It also emphasized that the EC Resolution No.127 dated 10.11.1990 was not approved by the Visitor, rendering it ineffective. The court reiterated the settled law and dismissed the appeals.
Final Decision: The appeals of the appellants were dismissed, and the court directed the respondents not to recover the salary for the service rendered by the appellants, although the consequential benefits accruing post superannuation shall be reckoned up to the age of superannuation of 62 years only.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
LPA 142/2022 and CM APPL. 38798/2022
1. With the consent of the parties, LPA No.142/2022 is being taken as the lead matter, since the parties are ad idem to the fact that the out of the said connected two LPAs, the LPA No.142/2022 in the impugned order, has the advantage of detailed and comprehensive discussion of the issues encompassing the grievances of both the Appellants. Prayer in the appeals are as under:
Prayer in LPA No.491/2019
"a. Set aside the Order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) 7849 of 2019."
Prayer in the LPA No.142/2022
"1. Order or direct to set aside the impugned judgement dated 10.11.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in W.P. (C) no. 5652/2019 titled as "Dr. Meera Sood vs University of Delhi & Ors." of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi.
2. Order or Direct to set aside the order of superannuation of the Appellant at the age of 62 years vide Letter Dt. 27.03.2019 of the Respondent College as sent to the Appellant.
3. Order or Direct the College to reinstate the Appellant in her service till the age of 65 years as per the UGC and MHRD guidelines."
2. The overlapping brief facts as culled out from the entire set of pleadings filed in both the appeals before this court are as follows:
LPA - 491/2019 - Sudhir Kumar Taneja v. University of Delhi & Ors.
| DATE | PARTICULAR |
| 16.07.1984 | Appellant was appointed as Director of Physical Education on a probation for a period of 1 year in Shyam Lal College (Eve.), University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "DU"). |
| 04.04.1990 | Appellant was appointed as a Permanent Teacher since 16.07.1984 |
| 10.11.1990 | EC passed a resolution 127 by which designation of DPE was to be known as Lecturer. |
| 06.09.1993 | Dy. Registrar sent a letter to Respondent no.3 informing that Appellant has been approved and placed in the Senior Scale under Merit Promotion Scheme of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "MPS"). |
| 20.10.1997 | The Asst. Registrar informed R.3 about approval accorded by the respondent no.1 university to the promotion of Senior Lecturers including the appellant w.e.f. 24.11.1996 as Reader under Merit Promotion Scheme 1987. |
| 23.03.2007 | MHRD wrote to Secretary, UGC that age of superannuation of all person who were holding teaching positions on regular employment against sanctioned post as on 15.03.2007 in respect of all centrally funded institutions in higher and technical educations shall be increased from 62 to 65 years. |
| 19.06.2019 | Reminder letter by the Appellant to Asst. Registrar in continuation seeking clarification regarding the age of superannuation of Associate Professor in Physical Education |
| 15.07.2019 | Respondent no. 3 issued office order stating that the appellant is to be superannuated 31.07.2019 i.e. at the age of 62 years instead of 65 years. |
| 22.07.2019 | The Ld. Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition |
LPA-142/2022- Dr. Meera Sood V. University of Delhi & Ors.
| DATE | PARTICULAR |
| 30.08.1983 | Appellant was appointed to the post of Director of Physical Education (hereinafter referred to as "the DPE") at Vivekananda Mahila College, DU. |
| 10.11.1990 | The Executive Council in their meeting passed Resolution 127 to change the designation of Director of Physical Education to Lecturer. |
| 11.01.1991 | The Dy. Registrar conveyed resolution 127 to the Principal of Vivekananda Mahila College. |
| 24.06.1998 | The Appellant was informed from the college that she has been promoted to the post of Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme. |
| 24.03.2005 | Ministry of Human Resource and Development vide 24.03.2005 letter created the Department of Physical Education in the Respondent University. In year 2007 the university also introduced physical education as an academic course at undergraduate level and Appellant was also discharging duties as a Lecturer. |
| 23.03.2007 | MHRD wrote to Secretary, UGC that age of superannuation of all person who were holding teaching positions on regular employment against sanctioned post as on 15.03.2007 in |
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 court emphasized that the applicability of government orders with retrospective effect and the re-appointment of superannuated individuals are within the executive domain and cannot be directed b....
Changes to retirement age rules are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.
increasing the age of superannuation only in the case of Professors, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as alleged, for the simple reason that whereas equals cannot be ....
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.
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
