IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MANMOHAN SINGH ...PETITIONERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

....RESPONDENTS

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 16.10.2025 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 02.12.2025

3. The date when the judgment is uploaded

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment and reason thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. B.S. Patwalia, Advocate with for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S Kanwar, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Chamandeep, Advocate for the respondent-UOI Mr. I.S. Sindhu, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 4 ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J Prayer

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in service as Senior Librarian at the National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research (NITTTR) beyond the age of 62 years, up to 65 years, contending that the post of Senior Librarian is a faculty position and therefore, the provisions regarding superannuation applicable to faculty members should apply to him.

T he Conspectus Of Facts

2. The petitioner served as Chief Librarian/Senior Librarian in the respondent institute has approached this Court seeking extension of his service beyond the age of 62 years up to 65 years. Earlier, the petitioner had filed C.M. No. 13185-CWP-2019, which was withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate application seeking interim relief. Subsequently, he filed C.M. No. 13845-CWP-2019 seeking a direction to allow him to continue in service beyond 62 years, which was dismissed in view of a government circular dated

14.01.1999, granting him liberty to challenge the circular.

3. The petitioner did not avail the liberty granted, and approached this Court only shortly before attaining the age of 62 years. The respondents contend that the age of superannuation for the post of Librarian was fixed at 62 years as per Ministry of Human Resource Development orders, and the petitioner’s post was categorized as non-teaching cadre, though enjoying privileges and facilities similar to teaching faculty. The respondents further submit that the extension of superannuation age from 62 to 65 years was provided only for teaching faculty due to shortage of such personnel, and there was no policy or order extending similar benefit to librarians.

4. The petitioner claims entitlement to continue in service until 65 years based on parity with teaching faculty, whereas the respondents maintain that the petitioner’s rights have not been infringed, and the age of superannuation is a policy matter governed by rules applicable to the respective cadre.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of Clause 8(f)(ii) of letter dated 31.12.2008 of Annexure P-8 and extension of service alleging denial of his rights.

Contentions On behalf of Petitioners

6. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioner, who has been serving in the Institute as Chief Librarian/Senior Librarian, has a legitimate expectation to continue in service beyond the age of 62 years up to 65 years, in line with the teaching faculty of the Institute. It was argued that although the petitioner is a non-teaching employee, he has been granted certain privileges and facilities at par with teaching faculty, including pay scales and other service benefits, and therefore, the restriction on age of superannuation under Clause 8(f)(ii) of letter dated 31.12.2008 of Annexure P-8 is arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory.

7. Learned counsel emphasized that the policy for extension of superannuation for teaching faculty has been expressly linked to the scarcity of qualified personnel for teaching which seems like a frivolous and in the absence of any rational distinction, simila