SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Vijay Kumar Vishal - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
CWPOA No.370 of 2019
Decided On : 27-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General.

UGC Regulations prescribing superannuation at 62 years for college teachers not binding on State Government employees unless expressly adopted by State via service rule amendments.

Headnote:(A) UGC Regulations - Superannuation of college teachers at age of 62 years - Not ipso facto applicable to State Government employees including college lecturers whose services taken over by State - Governed by State Rules prescribing superannuation at 58 years unless UGC norms expressly adopted or incorporated by amendment to State Rules - No material placed establishing adoption - Retirement at 58 years upheld; no discrimination as similarly placed retired at 58 years. (Paras 6(i), 6(i-a) to 6(i-d), 6(ii))

(B) University Rules/Ordinances - Superannuation at 60 years - Applicable only to teachers in non-government affiliated colleges - Inapplicable to teachers attaining status of Government servants post takeover of services into Government service. (Para 6(iv))

Facts of the case:
Petitioner appointed as Lecturer in college cadre in privately managed 95% aided college affiliated to university; granted senior scale and selection grade. State took over college and staff, notified as school cadre but continued as college cadre pursuant to interim order. Proposed retirement at 58 years per State Rules challenged seeking continuance till 62 years per UGC Regulations and salary benefits.

Findings of Court:
Impugned communication proposing retirement at 58 years upheld; prayer for service till 62 years rejected; liberty granted to represent for gratuity, to be considered by authorities within stipulated time.

Issues: Whether UGC Regulations mandatorily govern superannuation age of State Government college lecturers post takeover of services; applicability of State Rules and university rules to such lecturers; entitlement to gratuity.

Ratio Decidendi: UGC Regulations directory and not binding on States unless adopted; State empowered under Article 309 to prescribe service conditions unaffected by UGC norms without adoption; uniform application to similarly circumstanced employees; university rules cease to apply post absorption into Government service.

Result: Petition disposed of; retirement order upheld; gratuity claim to be examined.

Table of Content
1. state rules govern superannuation at 58; ugc not ipso facto. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Vijay Kumar Vishal, had initially filed an Original Application No.285 of 2007, before Learned State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.370 of 2019, seeking the following reliefs :-

“(a). That Annexure A-7, whereby the respondents have proposed to retire the applicant in an illegal manner may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
(b). That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the applicant to work as Lecturer College Cadre upto the age of 62 years as per U.G.C. Notification at Annexure A-8.
(c). That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay and release salary to the applicant at the rate admissible to the applicant as lecturer college cadre w.e.f. February 2006 till date.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Lecturer [English] in College Cadre privately managed in Goswami Ganesh Datt Sanatan Dharam College [G.G.D.S.D College 95% aided] and affiliated to Himachal Pradesh University in May 1971 and he joined as such on 25.07.1971, in the regular pay scale. During service, the petitioner was given Senior Scale and Selection Grade as College Lecturer by the respondents. On 04.01.2007, the State Government announced the taking over of Respondent No.3-College i.e. G.G.D.S.D. The Notification of taking over of the staff were issued on 08.02.2007 [Annexure A-4] whereby, State Authorities decided to take over the service of the petitioner as Lecturer [School Cadre] instead of Lecturer [College Cadre]. This Notification dated 08.02.2007 [Annexure A-4] was assailed by the petitioner in O.A. No.480 of 2007 wherein, State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 02.03.2007 [Annexure A-6] directed to maintain status quo. Pursuant to the passing of status quo orders the petitioner continued to serve as Lecturer in English under the Respondent No.3.
2(i) Grievance set up by the petitioner is that though the petitioner had been working as Lecturer in College Cadre but the respondents issued a communication on 10.10.2007 [Annexure P-7] proposing to retire the petitioner from service at the age of 58 years w.e.f. 31.10.2007, which was contrary to U.G.C. Notification dated 15.01.1999 [Annexure A-8], which provided for superannuation of College Teachers at the age of 62 years. In this backdrop, the instant petition was filed seeking quashing of the communication dated 10.10.2007 [Annexure P-7] with the prayer to allow him to serve till the age of 62 years [31.10.2011] with all consequential benefits.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 31.10.2007, the State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 24.03.2008 of Deputy Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit indicates that after the services of the petitioner were taken over and by virtue of Interim Orders, the petitioner continued to work as Lecturer [College Cadre] till his superannuation on 31.10.2007 on attaining the age of 58 years. It is averred that the petitioner, on acquiring the status of a Government Servant was to be governed by the State Rules, which were notified or were made applicable to the State Government Employees, prescribe the age of superannuation as 58 years. It is averred that the U.G.C. Regulations dated 17.07.1998 [Annexure P-8] are not ipso facto applicable to the petitioner. In this backdrop, prayer is made for dismissing the writ petition.

NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:
4. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder, so as to rebut the stand taken in Reply-Affidavit by the State Authorities.

5. Heard, Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State.

ANALYSIS:
6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances a






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top