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

2024 Supreme(UK) 84

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT, JJ.
Dr. Anuradha Dutta - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 333 of 2023 With Writ Petition (S/B) No. 308 of 2023 Writ Petition (S/B) No. 309 of 2023 Writ Petition (S/B) No. 310 of 2023 Writ Petition (S/B) No. 311 of 2023 Writ Petition (S/B) No. 320 of 2023 Writ Petition (S/B) No. 323 of 2023 Writ Petition (S/B) No. 348 of 2023 Writ Petition (S/B) No. 356 of 2023 Writ Petition (S/B) No. 358 of 2023 Writ Petition (S/B) No. 433 of 2023
Decided On : 21-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. K.P. Upadhayay and Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocates, assisted by Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Mr. Anirudha Bhatt, Mr. Ashish Joshi, Mr. Abhijay Negi, Mr. Girveer Chand, Mr. S.S. Yadav, Mr. Narayan Hari Gupta, Mr. K.R. Gazi, Advs.
For the Respondents:Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Standing Counsel, Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Adv., Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Adv., Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
The definition of 'Teacher' under the U.P. Act includes those recognized as such, entitling them to superannuation benefits.

Headnote:

Employment - Termination of Services - U.P. Krishi Evam Odhyogik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 - The court affirmed that petitioners, recognized as Teachers, are entitled to benefits under the age of superannuation policy, quashing their termination.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, serving as Professors, had their services terminated by the State Government, which claimed they were not Teachers and thus not entitled to a superannuation age increase.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners qualified as Teachers under the relevant Act and previous judgments, thus their termination was unjustified.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are considered Teachers under the U.P. Krishi Evam Odhyogik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958, and entitled to the benefits of the superannuation policy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of Teachers includes those recognized as such, and the petitioners fell within this category, warranting the benefits of the superannuation policy.

Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the termination orders are quashed, allowing the petitioners to continue until the age of 62.

JUDGMENT :

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) :

Since, common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, these are being taken up together and are decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, facts of WPSB No. 333 of 2023 alone are being considered and discussed.

2. Petitioners were serving as Professors at the time of passing of the order dated 04.07.2023 by the State Government, pursuant to which, their services were terminated.

3. In the order dated 04.07.2023, State Government has held that petitioners are not Teachers, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of the policy decision taken by the State Government in the year 2013, as communicated vide Government Order dated 20.09.2013, which provided that the age of superannuation of Teachers serving in G.B. Pant University of Agricultural and Technology shall be 65 years and not 60 years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the question whether similarly situate persons serving in Directorate of Extension and Directorate of Research, who were getting academic grade pay as per U.G.C. scales and were also given benefit of increase in age of superannuation, which was later withdrawn, have been decided by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 350 of 2023 and Writ Petition (S/B) No. 327 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits that these writ petitions also deserve to be decided in terms of the said judgments.

5. Learned counsel for the University does not dispute the said contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and in fact, he concedes that the question involved in the present writ petition is identical to the one decided by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 350 of 2023 and Writ Petition (S/B) No. 327 of 2023.

6. Learned State Counsel, however, submitted that there is some factual difference in the present Writ Petition, therefore, it cannot be said to be identical to those, which have been decided by this Court.

7. Be that as it may, the main issue which falls for consideration of this Court is whether petitioners are Teachers within the meaning of the term as defined under Section 2(k) of U.P. Krishi Evam Odhyogik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 and that question has been answered in the affirmative in the judgments rendered earlier and from the pleadings made in these Writ Petitions and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that petitioners in these Writ Petitions also fall within the category of Teachers. Thus, these Writ Petitions also deserves to be decided in terms of the judgments referred to above.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that identical issue has been decided by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 350 of 2023 and Writ Petition (S/B) No. 327 of 2023. He thus submits that the present writ petition also deserves to be decided in terms of the aforesaid judgments.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023 AHC-LKO 35421-DB. The issue involved in the said case was whether increased age of superannuation of University Teachers can be made available to persons serving in Krishi Vigyan Kendra and other Institutes of ICAR in view of the definition of Teachers as amended by U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

    (22) The State Counsel has argued that the petitioners are the employees of Krishi Vigyan Kendras and not that of the University. However, having regard to the stand taken by the ICAR and as per the Memorandum of Understanding entered into ICAR which is Funding Agency and the University, it is the Host Institute under whose control the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras work. As per the said Memorandum of Understanding, so far as the conditions of service of the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are

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