JUDGMENT By the Court.—An application for taking on record a counter-affidavit has been filed today, a copy of which was already served to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The counter-affidavit filed by the opposite parties is, thus, taken on record. 2. Heard Shri S. P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri I.P. Singh, learned counsel representing the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ‘’SGPGIMS’) and Shri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Visitor of the said Institute. The petitioner by instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India has assailed the impugned action on the part of the respondents, whereby she has been superannuated on her age attaining the age of 60 years with effect from after noon of 31.12.2016. 3. The office order superannuating the petitioner at the age of 60 years dated 29.11.2016 has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, which has been challenged herein. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 16.1.2017, passed by the Executive Registrar of SGPGIMS, whereby the representation made by her with the prayer to retire her on her attaining the age of 65 years has been rejected. The claim put forth by the petitioner in this writ petition primarily is that since the petitioner was working on the post of Lecturer in the College of Nursing, SGPGIMS, Lucknow and she belongs to category of employees categorized as faculty members in terms of the decision of the SGPGIMS itself, she is eligible to work and discharge the functions of her post till she attains the age of 65 years and the respondents, by retiring her on her attaining the age of 60 years, have not only acted arbitrarily and illegally but have also acted in derogation of the relevant provisions of the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, First Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations, 2011’). 4. The conditions of service, including the age of superannuation of the faculty members and employees of the SGPGIMS, are governed by the statutory regulations framed under Section 41(2) of the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1983. 4. The conditions of service, including the age of superannuation of the faculty members and employees of the SGPGIMS, are governed by the statutory regulations framed under Section 41(2) of the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1983. These are called the First Regulations, 2011 and according to Regulation 93 of the First Regulations, the age of superannuation of faculty members and employees of the SGPGIMS, Lucknow shall be as prevalent at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the AIIMS’) from time to time subject to approval of the State Government. Regulation 93 of the First Regulations, 2011 is extracted hereinbelow: “93. Age of superannuation of faculty members and employees of the Institute shall be as prevalent at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, from time to time subject to approval of the State Government.” Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid statutory prescription available in Regulation 93, all categories of employees of the SGPGIMS, either the faculty members or the other employees, are to be superannuated at the age, which is prevalent in respect of superannuation of the faculty members and other employees of AIIMS from time to time, however, such determination of age of superannuation at par with the age of superannuation of the employees of the AIIMS is subject to approval of the State Government. The provisions contained in Regulation 93 would, thus, mean that as and when the age of superannuation of faculty members and employees of the AIIMS is altered or revised, the same shall be applicable to the faculty members and employees of the SGPGIMS as well, however, only after approval of the State Government. In other words, age of superannuation in respect of employees of SGPGIMS stands pari passu with the age of superannuation of employees of AIIMS. 5. The issue, which needs determination in this case, is as to whether as per the provisions contained in Regulation 93 of the First Regulations, 2011, the age of superannuation of the petitioner, who has been working as Lecturer in the College of Nursing, will be 60 years or 65 years and as to whether the prevalent age of superannuation of an employee working on equivalent post in the AIIMS has been approved by the State Government for its application in respect of age of superannuation of corresponding employee working at College of Nursing, SGPGIMS. In case, the Court finds that such approval has been accorded by the State Government, the petitioner would, in fact, be entitled to continue to serve the SGPGIMS till she attains the age of 65 years. 6. The first document, for the purposes of determination of the aforesaid issue, which needs to be referred to by the Court is a Government Order dated 12.6.2012 which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition, according to which the State Government had taken a decision to enhance the age of superannuation of the faculty members of the SGPGIMS and certain other Medical Institutes situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh from 62 to 65 years. 7. Learned counsel representing the respondents has not been able to show that the said Government Order dated 12.6.2012 has been superseded or rescinded till date. 8. The other document, which may be referred to is another Government Order dated 31.10.2014, which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, according to which, the State Government had decided that if the Principal, Lecturer and Tutor working in College of Nursing of SGPGIMS are to be treated as employees in teaching category, then in that eventuality, their age of superannuation shall be governed in terms of the Government Order dated 12.6.2012, which directed that the age of superannuation of teaching faculty members shall be 65 years. The said Government Order dated 31.10.2014 was issued in pursuance of a letter dated 17.9.2014, written by the Director of SGPGIMS to the State Government, whereby it was informed that Principal, Lecturers and Tutors of the College of Nursing functioning in the SGPGIMS are employees in teaching category and as such they are to be treated as faculty members. The said letter of the Director dated 17.9.2014, wherein it has been stated by him that the Principal, Lecturers and Tutors, working in the College of Nursing, are the faculty members, finds mentioned in the Government Order dated 31.10.2014. 9. We may also refer to yet another letter of the Director of the SGPGIMS, which is dated 24.1.2014 and has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 9. We may also refer to yet another letter of the Director of the SGPGIMS, which is dated 24.1.2014 and has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. By the said letter, the Director has informed the State Government that as per information received from AIIMS, the Principal, Lecturers and Tutors working in the College of Nursing of the said Institute, are being treated as faculty members and as such approval be granted for retiring the Principal, Lecturers and Tutors of the College of Nursing of the SGPGIMS as well, at the age of 65 years. The letter dated 17.9.2014 of the Director, which finds mentioned in the Government Order dated 31.10.2014 is subsequent to the letter dated 24.1.2014, written by the Director of SGPGIMS and these two letters are testimony to the fact that the Principal, Lecturers and Tutors working in the College of Nursing of the SGPGIMS are faculty members. 10. In view of the aforesaid admission made by the Director of SGPGIMS himself, there is no ambiguity that the petitioner being Lecturer in the College of Nursing is to be treated as faculty member. 11. The Government of India vide an order dated 28.6.2010 had enhanced the age of superannuation of teaching faculty in nursing in the Central Government nursing institutions from 60 to 65 years. Accordingly, as is evident from the mention of the letter received from the AIIMS in the letter of the Director of SGPGIMS dated 21.1.2014, the teaching faculty members in the College of Nursing at AIIMS are being retired on their attaining the age of 65 years. 12. In terms of the provisions contained in Regulation 93 of the First Regulations, 2011, the age of superannuation of the teaching and non-teaching staff, both is at par with the age of superannuation of the equivalent employees working at AIIMS, subject to approval to be accorded by the State Government. In our considered opinion, the Government Order dated 30.10.2014 is unambiguous and categorical in observing that in case the Principal, Lecturers and Tutors working in the College of Nursing of SGPGIMS are faculty members, then their age of superannuation shall be 65 years as per the Government Order dated 12.6.2012. In our considered opinion, the Government Order dated 30.10.2014 is unambiguous and categorical in observing that in case the Principal, Lecturers and Tutors working in the College of Nursing of SGPGIMS are faculty members, then their age of superannuation shall be 65 years as per the Government Order dated 12.6.2012. Thus, the Government Order dated 31.10.2014 is nothing but an approval to the provision relating to superannuation of faculty members, including the Lecturers in the College of Nursing of the SGPGIMS at par with the age of superannuation of equivalent employees of AIIMS. 13. As observed above, it is indisputable and unambiguous that the Lecturers in the College of Nursing at SGPGIMS are teaching category employees and are, thus, faculty members accordingly. The approval of the State Government having been accorded vide order dated 31.10.2014 for retiring the faculty members of SGPGIMS on their attaining the age of 65 years, there is no doubt that the petitioner being a faculty member ought to be superannuated on her attaining the age of 65 years and thus, the impugned action on the part of the SGPGIMS Administration in retiring her at the age of 60 years is contrary to what has been prescribed under Regulation 93 of the First Regulations, 2011. Learned counsel representing the SGPGIMS has, however, sought to justify the impugned action on the part of the respondents, on the basis of an office order dated 22.2.2013, which has been annexed as Annexure CA-2 appended to the counter-affidavit filed by the SGPGIMS, wherein at serial No. 11 the post of Lecturer has been categorized as Teaching Non-Faculty and the age of superannuation has been shown to be 60 years. We may notice that after the said office order dated 22.2.2013, the Director of the SGPGIMS, not once but twice, firstly on 24.1.2014 and secondly, on 17.9.2014 has recognized that the posts of Principal, Lecturers and Tutors in the College of Nursing are teaching category posts and hence incumbents holding these posts are faculty members for the reason that the incumbents holding the corresponding posts at AIIMS are being treated as faculty members. The information contained in the letter dated 24.1.2014, written by the Director to the State Government, is based on a communication dated 8.10.2008 received by the SGPGIMS from the AIIMS, wherein it has been informed that the Principal, Lecturers and Tutors in the College of Nursing at AIIMS are faculty members. We have already held that there is no ambiguity that the Principal, Lecturers and Tutors of the SGPGIMS are faculty members and approval of their age of retirement has already been accorded by the State Government vide its order dated 31.10.2014. Thus, the requirement of determination of age of superannuation as per Regulation 93 of the First Regulations, 2011 in this case, has been met as the State Government has already approved the age of retirement of the Principal, Lecturers and Tutors working in the College of Nursing at SGPGIMS at par with the age of retirement of corresponding staff at AIIMS, hence, the stand being put forth by the learned counsel representing the SGPGIMS, based on the earlier office memorandum/order dated 22.2.2013, is not tenable in the eyes of law. 14. We may further observe that faculty member has been defined in Regulation 2(v) of the First Regulations, 2011 to mean a member of the teaching staff and includes Emeritus Professor, Distinguished Professor, Professor of Eminence, Senior Professor, Professor, Additional Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. Regulation 2(v) of the First Regulations is extracted herein below: “2(v) ‘Faculty member’ means a member of the teaching staff and includes Emeritus Professor, Distinguished Professor, Professor of Eminence, Senior Professor, Professor, Additional Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor;” Thus, the definition of ‘’Faculty member’ occurring in Regulation 2(v) as quoted above not only includes Emeritus Professor, Distinguished Professor, Professor of Eminence, Senior Professor, Professor, Additional Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor but any other member of teaching staffs as well. 15. Similarly, the teacher has been defined in Section 2(i) of the SGPGIMS Act, 1983 which includes Professor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or any other person appointed under the said Act for the conduct of teaching or research work or imparting medical education in the Institute. 15. Similarly, the teacher has been defined in Section 2(i) of the SGPGIMS Act, 1983 which includes Professor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or any other person appointed under the said Act for the conduct of teaching or research work or imparting medical education in the Institute. Section 2(i) of the SGPGIMS Act, 1983 is quoted below: “teacher includes a Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor or any person appointed under this Act for the conduct of teaching or research work or imparting medical education in the Institute.” There is no material to infer that the petitioner has not been engaged in conducting teaching in the College of Nursing at SGPGIMS. It is also relevant to notice that the petitioner is also having qualification of M.Sc. Nursing. 16. In view of the subsequent admission by the Director of the Institute in his two letters dated 24.1.2014 and 17.9.2014, categorization of Lecturer in Nursing as Teaching Non-Faculty is not only incongruous but is also in derogation of the terms ‘’faculty member’ and ‘’teacher’ as defined in Regulation 2(v) of the First Regulations, 2011 and Section 2(i) of the SGPGIMS Act, 1983. 17. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made above, the petitioner, for the purpose of determination of age of superannuation, shall be treated as teacher and faculty member. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 29.11.2016, passed by the Director of SGPGIMS retiring the petitioner on her attaining the age of 60 years and the order dated 16.1.2017 passed by the Executive Registrar, SGPGIMS, as are contained in Annexure Nos. 2 and 1 to the writ petition respectively, are hereby quashed. 18. The authorities of SGPGIMS are further directed to allow the petitioner to discharge her duties forthwith and to superannuate her on her attaining the age of 65 years. We, however, provide that since from 31.12.2016 the petitioner has not worked, she shall not be entitled to the salary for the period from 31.12.2016 till she submits her joining under this order, though, she would be entitled to all other service benefits to which she may be entitled, had she was not retired with effect from 31.12.2016. This period shall not be treated to be break in service and the same shall be counted for all other service benefits. There will be no order as to costs.