IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

WRIT PETITION No. 12687 of 2024

DR. RAJESH MISHRA

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Saurabh Sunder- Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rajesh Tiwari- Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Union of India.

Shri Yogesh Bhatnager- Advocate for respondent No. 2.

ORDER discipline Physical Education in the year 2001. The petitioner refers to the notification Annexure P/6 issued by Ministry of HRD dated 16.09.2009 whereby it has been mentioned in para-5 that the age of superannuation of Librarians, cadre of Physical Education personnel of centrally funded technical institutions and Registrar and Finance Officer of IITs, NITs, etc. would be at par with UGC and hence it is fixed at 62 years subject to he possessing qualification/experience as prescribed by the UGC from time to time. The enhanced age of superannuation would take effect from the date of order i.e. 16.09.2009.

(Reserved on : 13/10/2025)

(Pronounced on: 09/01/2026)

The petitioner who is working as Student Activity & Sports Officer

(SAS Officer) in Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (For short “MANIT”) is aggrieved by the order Annexure P/1 dated 27.03.2023 intimating the petitioner that he would retire upon attaining the age of 60 years i.e. on 30.06.2024. The petitioner claims to be eligible to retire on attaining the age of 62 years and on this assertion the present petition has

been filed.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was

initially appointed in the erstwhile Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology when it was a Regional Engineering College, vide Annexure P/2 dated 27.04.1993 to the post of Games Coach and in due course of time he got promoted to the post of Assistant Director of Sports. It is argued that the petitioner has also obtained Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D.) under the

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the UGC has fixed the educational qualification for Director of Physical Education as per paragraph No. 4.6.1 of Annexure P/10 which is UGC notification issued in September- 2009 and as per the said notification the requisite qualification is Ph.D in physical education and other requirements as also mentioned in clauses (i) to (vi) of the said clause 4.6.1. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has all the qualification as per 4.6.1. Counsel further relies on the subsequent notification of the Ministry of HRD dated 28.03.2016 (P/11) whereby the Ministry has held that the enhanced age of superannuation for Librarians and Physical Education personnel of NIT would be 62 years, which would be applicable to all the NITs, excluding NIT Warangal.

4. The counsel for petitioner further refers to circular Annexure P/12 dated 28.03.2018, issued by the Assistant Registrar of MANIT, with approval of the Directors, that the cadre of MANIT be restructured and as per the said restructuring order, the petitioner was allowed to continue as Assistant Director of Physical Education and as per MHRD letter dated 26- 11-2015, the cadre was to be treated as dying cadre on retirement of existing incumbents, which is vide para 8(a) (ix) of Annexure P-12 available at the age of 83 of the writ petition.

5. The petitioner submits that other NITs like NIT Rourkela has withdrawn the superannuation order of retiring employees holding the cadre of S.A.S. upon attaining the age of 60 years, and recognized their age of superannuation as 62 years, whereas in the case of petitioner, the MANIT has not recognized the age of superannuation as 62 years. It further contended that SAS officer in MANIT Raipur has also got benefit of age of superannuation of SAS officer to be 62 years. It is further argued that in case of Registrar, the MANIT has already decided to retire the incumbents upon attaining the age of 62 years and the same benefit has not been given to the petitioner who is in the Sports Activity cadre.

6. Shri Yogesh Bhatnagar, counsel for respondent