IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, JJ.
Dr. J.P. Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 344 of 2023
Decided On : 21-05-2024
Superannuation - Teacher - Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodygik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam), 1958 - The court interpreted the definition of 'Teacher' under Section 2(k) and the implications of Sections 28(c) and 4(d), concluding that the petitioner was entitled to continue service until 65 years of age.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Professor at a university, challenged his premature superannuation at 60 years, arguing he qualified as a 'Teacher' under the Uttar Pradesh University Act, which allowed for retirement at 65 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was indeed a 'Teacher' as defined by the Act, and the orders for his retirement were arbitrary and illegal, lacking proper authority.
Issues: Whether the petitioner qualifies as a 'Teacher' under the Uttar Pradesh University Act, thus entitled to the extended retirement age of 65 years.
Ratio Decidendi: The definition of 'Teacher' under Section 2(k) of the Uttar Pradesh University Act was pivotal in determining the petitioner's eligibility for continued service until 65 years.
Result: The court quashed the retirement orders and allowed the petitioner to continue service until the age of 65.
JUDGMENT :
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) :
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to not superannuate the petitioner before attaining the age of 65 years in pursuance of office memo dated 04-07-2023 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, issued by the respondent no.1, since the petitioner comes under the definition of teacher as per provisions Section 2 (k) read with Section 28 (c) of Chapter-XII and section 4(d) of chapter XIII of the (Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodygik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam), 1958.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for records and quash the consequential orders dated 14-07-2023 and 15-07-2023 contained in Annexure-13 & 14 to the writ petition passed by the respondent nos. 5and 6.
iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to serve as Professor, Vegetable Science in the Department of Vegetable Science till he attains the age of 65 years with all consequential benefits.
v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare that part of the office memo dated 04-07-2023 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, issued by the respondent no.1, is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of Section 2 (k) read with Section 28 (c) of Chapter-XII and Section 4(d) of Chapter XIII of the Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodygik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam), 1958, by which the respondents superannuated the petitioner before attaining the age of 65 years, so far as it relates to the petitioner.
vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare action of the respondents to superannuate the petitioner before he attaining the age of 65 years is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of Section 2 (k) read with Section 28 (c) of Chapter-XII and section 4(d) of chapter XIII of the Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodygik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam), 1958.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor (Vegetable Breeding) in Department of Horticulture, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology w.e.f. 25.10.1991. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed on the recommendation of Selection Committee constituted as per provisions contained in clause 4(d) of Chapter XIII of the statutes of the University against a project funded by Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR). In the appointment order dated 25.10.1991, it is mentioned that petitioner will have to abide by Regulation on Code of Conduct for Teachers of the University and further that he will also have to abide by the Act, Statutes and Rules of the University.
3. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor (Vegetable Science) in the pay-scale of 16,400-22,400 vide order dated 13.11.2001 passed by Chief Personal Officer of the University. By a subsequent order dated 18.10.2003, he was asked to look after the duties and responsibilities of Joint Director (Research) and it was further provided that his salary and service condition will remain unchanged. Thereafter, vide order dated 05.07.2007, petitioner was assigned additional charge of Joint Director, Vegetable Research Center and subsequently vide order dated 03.10.2009, petitioner was assigned duties of Director (Administration). However, in all these orders, petitioner’s designation was mentioned as Professor (Vegetable Science).
4. State Government had increased the age of superannuation of Teachers of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology from 60
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.
The court established that a Senior Research Officer is classified as a Teacher under the university's statutes, entitled to benefits of extended service age.
The definition of 'Teacher' under the U.P. Act includes those recognized as such, entitling them to superannuation benefits.
The definition of 'Teacher' under the U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958, encompasses roles involved in research and extension, qualifying the petitioner for retirement benefi....
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 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 ....
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.