Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 158 (UTT)

S. P. Mittal v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-03-05

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 1. DAV (PG) College, Dehradun (from hereinafter referred to as ‘College’) is a privately managed Postgraduate College, fully funded by the State Government, which is affiliated to H.N.B. Garhwal Central University. Petitioners served as Teacher in the said College and retired from service during Academic Session 2017-18, upon completing of 65 years of age. 2. Petitioners have challenged letter dated 03.07.2018 issued by Director, Higher Education to Principal, DAV (PG) College, which was issued in reply to Principal’s letter dated 23.06.2018, whereby guidance was sought from Directorate in the matter of extension in service to Teachers, who complete age of superannuation during mid academic session. By the said letter, Principal of the concerned College was informed that Government Order dated 15.10.2012, providing for increase in retirement age of Teachers from 60 to 65 years, do not provide for any extension of service beyond 65 years. Reference was also made in the said letter, to another Government order dated 18.06.2005, which provides that all monetary benefits shall be paid to University Teachers immediately after their retirement, upon completion of 60 years of age and no extension in service shall be given to them. By the impugned communication dated 03.07.2018, Director made it clear that extension in service cannot be given to Teachers of College, once they retire upon completing age of superannuation. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking the following reliefs:- (i) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for records and quash the order dated 03.07.2018 of Respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 1), through which, the provision of re-appointment after superannuation in the academic mid-session as has been refused to the Petitioners. (ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to give an approval for the payment of the salary as per applicable norms, for the period of re-appointment (after completion of their services) up to 30.06.2018. (iii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to pay the interest on the unpaid salary of the Petitioners for the delayed period starting 01.07.2018 till the actual date of payment. 4. (iii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to pay the interest on the unpaid salary of the Petitioners for the delayed period starting 01.07.2018 till the actual date of payment. 4. Petitioners refer to an order dated 16.11.2017 issued by Secretary, Board of Management of DAV (PG) College, whereby petitioners were reappointed till the end of Academic Session i.e. 30th June. From perusal of the said order, it is revealed that only petitioner no. 2 had retired till issuance of said order, while petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 3 were to retire after 1½ months and 2½ months respectively from date of issuance of the said order. 5. Petitioners rely upon Clause 17.15 of the Statute, which was applicable to H.N.B. Garhwal University before its conversion as Central University. The said Clause provides that date of superannuation of a Teacher, if do not fall on 30th June, then he shall continue in service till the end of Academic Session i.e. 30th June following and he will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately following his superannuation till 30th June following. Based on the Statute, learned counsel for petitioners contends that petitioners have a Statutory right to continue till end of Academic Session and the Secretary, Board of Management of the College had merely recognised that right, therefore, petitioners are entitled to salary and other benefits for the services rendered by them till the end of Academic Session pursuant to order of the Secretary, Board of Management. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel contends that the Statute relied by the petitioners were framed under U.P. State University Act and were applicable only till the University was a ‘State University’. He further submits that the ‘University’ was converted to a ‘Central University’ w.e.f. 15.01.2009 under the Central University Act, 2009, therefore, the Statute relied by petitioners are not attracted any longer to Teachers in the H.N.B. Garhwal Central University. He further submits that since State Government has to pay salary and other monetary benefits to Teachers of the college, therefore, Secretary, Board of Management had no authority to unilaterally reappoint the petitioners till the end of Academic Session. He further submits that since State Government has to pay salary and other monetary benefits to Teachers of the college, therefore, Secretary, Board of Management had no authority to unilaterally reappoint the petitioners till the end of Academic Session. He further submits that the order of reappointment issued by Secretary, Board of Management is non-est in the eyes of law, as it was issued without obtaining financial approval/concurrence of Director of Higher Education. Learned State Counsel further submits that age of superannuation of Teachers of Universities/Colleges affiliated to University was 60 years, which was increased to 65 years pursuant to guidelines issued by University Grants Commission. He further submits that re-employment to Teachers if permitted beyond 65 years of age will further reduce employment opportunity to talented youth, who are waiting for appointment to faculty positions in Universities/Colleges, since long. 7. Learned counsel for H.N.B Garhwal University submits that as per the UGC Regulations, re-employment of Teachers after attaining age of 65 years is not automatic and is subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. He further submits that discretion has been conferred upon the University, whether to continue or not to continue a Teacher after he/she completes the age of superannuation. He further submits that neither Vice-Chancellor of the University nor Director, Higher Education permitted the petitioners to discharge duties as Teacher after superannuation; therefore, petitioners cannot claim any monetary benefit from the State Authorities on the strength of letter issued by Secretary, Board of Management, on 16.11.2017. 8. Learned counsel for the University has drawn attention of this Court to judgment dated 10.06.2021, in the case of Dr. Nakli Singh vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar & another rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in WPSB No. 429 of 2020. In the said judgment, similar plea raised by a Teacher of H.N.B. Garhwal University, based on para 17.15 of the First Statute of the H.N.B. Garhwal University was negatived, and it was held that Statute framed under State University Act is inapplicable to Teachers who become employee of Central University after conversion of the University from State to Central University. Para 16 of the said judgment is reproduced below:- “16. Admittedly, the said Statute dealt with the State Universities, and not with the Central Universities, whereas, the present case deals with the Central University. Para 16 of the said judgment is reproduced below:- “16. Admittedly, the said Statute dealt with the State Universities, and not with the Central Universities, whereas, the present case deals with the Central University. Therefore, the opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that those teachers who retired in middle of the academic session in the State Universities shall be continued till the end of the academic session, is inapplicable to the present case. After all, the Statutes are different, and their scope and ambit is at variance. Hence, reliance on the case of Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal (supra), by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is highly misplaced.” 9. Since Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment has considered all contentions, which are raised by petitioners in the present writ petition, therefore, we are not persuaded to take a view different from the one taken by coordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment. Thus, the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, cannot be granted. 10. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.