Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 242 (UTT)

Noore Nazar Khan v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-06-06

K.M.JOSEPH, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “1. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take a decision in respect of enhancement of age of superannuation of the teachers of the Engineering and Technology Colleges / Institutions, imparting higher education in the field of Engineering & Technology, and Applied Sciences affiliated with the Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun in the same manner as it has been done in respect the Universities / Government Degree and Post Graduation Degree Colleges, as well as, Degree and Post Graduation Degree Colleges run by the Committee of Management, receiving grant from the State Government, under the Higher Education Department and Agriculture Department of the State. 2. any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. to award the cost to the petitioner throughout. 4. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and quash the order dated 28.4.2014 passed by the respondent no. 1 contained in Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. 5. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to increase the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 to 65 years in the same manner and with effect from the same date as it has been done in respect of the teachers of the Universities / colleges under the Higher Education and Agriculture Department of the State.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner was working as Professor in Bipin Tripathi Kumaun Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as the “Institute”). It is alleged that the Institute was established in 1986 and it is controlled by the Department of Technical Education of the State Government. The issue raised in this writ petition relates to the right of the petitioner to continue up to the age of 65 years following the Notification dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Central Government, which is produced as Annexure No. 1. The representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the said order is impugned in this writ petition. We have also noticed the other prayers. 3. We have heard Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. The representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the said order is impugned in this writ petition. We have also noticed the other prayers. 3. We have heard Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State; and Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the Institute. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, originally, by order dated 11.11.2009, the State of Uttarakhand decided to apply order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Government of India. However, it did not raise the age of superannuation, as contemplated in order dated 31.12.2008. A writ petition was filed as Writ Petition (S/B) No. 52 of 2010. The same was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court holding that the Government is obliged to raise the age of superannuation, as it was a composite affair once it decided to apply the Government of India’s decision. It is not in dispute that the SLP carried against the same by the Government was allowed. However, it is the case of the petitioner that, during the intervening period, by order dated 15.10.2012, the Government decided to raise the age of superannuation from 60 years to 65 years; but, it did not relate to the institutions coming under the Department of Technical Education. Still later, it is the case of the petitioner that, as far as the G.B. Pant University is concerned, which has, both, agricultural and technical wings, the age of superannuation has been raised to 65 years in, both, agricultural and technical wings. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in respect of the Institute, in which the petitioner was working as Professor, a member of the teaching staff for which the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation is contemplated under order dated 31.12.2008, there is clear hostile discrimination and age of superannuation has not been raised. 5. The stand of the Government appears to be, essentially, two-fold. It is contended that, as far as the technical education is concerned, there are sufficient number of qualified teachers available to replace the existing teachers. In this connection, our attention is drawn to the underlying premise for enhancing the age of superannuation to be found in Government of India order dated 31.12.2008. It is contended that, as far as the technical education is concerned, there are sufficient number of qualified teachers available to replace the existing teachers. In this connection, our attention is drawn to the underlying premise for enhancing the age of superannuation to be found in Government of India order dated 31.12.2008. It is read out to us that the Government of India contemplated that there is a shortage of teachers and also, of course, that there is need to attract teachers by appropriately elevating the age of superannuation from 60 years to 65 years. As far as teachers working in institutions relating to technical education are concerned, it is submitted that sufficient number of teachers are available having M. Tech. qualification for teaching in the technical institutes and, therefore, there was no pressing need to enhance the age of superannuation. Still furthermore, it is contended that, as far as the Institute in question is concerned, it does not receive any grant from the University Grants Commission and the qualifications are, actually, governed by the qualifications fixed by the AICTE. Therefore, it is submitted that, even though it may be a society, which is funded by the State as claimed, there is no basis for enhancing the age of superannuation. It is also pointed out that, as far as the GB Pant University is concerned, even though the age of superannuation has been raised even in the technical wing, it is in receipt of funds from the University Grants Commission, which is not the case in regard to the Institute with which we are concerned. On this argument being addressed, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew our attention to paragraphs 25-E & 25-F of the writ petition. They read as follows: “25-E. That in para 2 of the order dated 28.4.2014 it has been stated that Bipin Tripathi Kumaun Institute of Technology is run on Society mode affiliated with the Uttarakhand Technical University and does not get any grant or financial assistance from UGC/AICTE. Even Uttarakhand Technical University does not receive grant from UGC. In this respect it is submitted that the Govt. Even Uttarakhand Technical University does not receive grant from UGC. In this respect it is submitted that the Govt. has also increased the age of superannuation of the Teachers from 60 to 65 years of the Teachers working in Degree and Post Graduation Degree Colleges run on society mode by the Committee of Management and affiliated with the Universities under the Higher Education Department. These colleges gets cent percent aid from the State Govt. and does not receive grant from the UGC for payment of salary to the Teachers. 25-F. That in para 4 of the order dated 28.4.2014 it has been stated that the age of superannuation of the teachers of the Universities / Colleges has been increased keeping in view the shortage of teachers. So far as Engineering colleges are concerned every year about one thousand students gets degree in M.Tech. and as such tried to show that there is no shortage of teachers in technical institutions. In this respect it is submitted that in Technical institutions the subjects of Science and Humanities are also taught and for that teachers are appointed as per norms laid down by the UGC / AICTE. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a class room teacher of Chemistry in the Applied Science department of the Engineering College and he has nothing to do with the Technical Education as such he is at par with the teachers working in the Universities under the Higher Education department.” 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would, therefore, emphasise that, even in the Institutions, which are run by the society, which are managed by the Committees of Management and which are aided by the Government, which, in turn, means that the teachers are paid by the funds made available by the Government, the age of superannuation has been raised from 60 years to 65 years. In regard to the said allegation, there is no response forthcoming in the counter affidavit of the Government of Uttarakhand. As far as paragraph 25-F is concerned, the contention taken is that the petitioner is a class room teacher of Chemistry in the Applied Science department of the Engineering College and he has nothing to do with the Technical Education and, as such, he is at par with the teachers working in the Universities under the Higher Education department. These contentions have not elicited any response. 7. These contentions have not elicited any response. 7. Therefore, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and direct reconsideration of the matter with reference to paragraphs 25-E & 25-F of the writ petition, which we have extracted above. Accordingly, the impugned order will stand quashed and there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the matter and take a decision within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition stands disposed of.