Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 365 (UTT)

Anuradha Dutta v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-05-21

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) : Since, common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, these are being taken up together and are decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, facts of WPSB No. 333 of 2023 alone are being considered and discussed. 2. Petitioners were serving as Professors at the time of passing of the order dated 04.07.2023 by the State Government, pursuant to which, their services were terminated. 3. In the order dated 04.07.2023, State Government has held that petitioners are not Teachers, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of the policy decision taken by the State Government in the year 2013, as communicated vide Government Order dated 20.09.2013, which provided that the age of superannuation of Teachers serving in G.B. Pant University of Agricultural and Technology shall be 65 years and not 60 years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the question whether similarly situate persons serving in Directorate of Extension and Directorate of Research, who were getting academic grade pay as per U.G.C. scales and were also given benefit of increase in age of superannuation, which was later withdrawn, have been decided by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 350 of 2023 and Writ Petition (S/B) No. 327 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits that these writ petitions also deserve to be decided in terms of the said judgments. 5. Learned counsel for the University does not dispute the said contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and in fact, he concedes that the question involved in the present writ petition is identical to the one decided by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 350 of 2023 and Writ Petition (S/B) No. 327 of 2023. 6. Learned State Counsel, however, submitted that there is some factual difference in the present Writ Petition, therefore, it cannot be said to be identical to those, which have been decided by this Court. 7. 6. Learned State Counsel, however, submitted that there is some factual difference in the present Writ Petition, therefore, it cannot be said to be identical to those, which have been decided by this Court. 7. Be that as it may, the main issue which falls for consideration of this Court is whether petitioners are Teachers within the meaning of the term as defined under Section 2(k) of U.P. Krishi Evam Odhyogik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 and that question has been answered in the affirmative in the judgments rendered earlier and from the pleadings made in these Writ Petitions and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that petitioners in these Writ Petitions also fall within the category of Teachers. Thus, these Writ Petitions also deserves to be decided in terms of the judgments referred to above. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that identical issue has been decided by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 350 of 2023 and Writ Petition (S/B) No. 327 of 2023. He thus submits that the present writ petition also deserves to be decided in terms of the aforesaid judgments. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023 AHC-LKO 35421-DB. The issue involved in the said case was whether increased age of superannuation of University Teachers can be made available to persons serving in Krishi Vigyan Kendra and other Institutes of ICAR in view of the definition of Teachers as amended by U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:- (22) The State Counsel has argued that the petitioners are the employees of Krishi Vigyan Kendras and not that of the University. However, having regard to the stand taken by the ICAR and as per the Memorandum of Understanding entered into ICAR which is Funding Agency and the University, it is the Host Institute under whose control the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras work. As per the said Memorandum of Understanding, so far as the conditions of service of the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are concerned, the same are to be governed by the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employees of the University. As per the said Memorandum of Understanding, so far as the conditions of service of the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are concerned, the same are to be governed by the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employees of the University. (23) We have already noticed that so far as the teaching staff and Scientists in the University are concerned, their age of superannuation indisputably is 62 years. In view of the decision of the Board of Management taken in its 28th Meeting of 30.09.1980, the Subject Matter Specialists have been recognized as Teachers. Unamended Section 2(k) categorizes an employee as a Teacher not only if he is appointed as Teacher, but also if such an employee is recognized as Teacher. We have already held that since U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019 does not provide for either expressly or impliedly, its operation retrospectively, the amended definition of 'Teacher' in Section 2(k) in this case will have no application. (24) In view of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that while issuing the Government Order dated 14.06.2022, the State Government has not taken into account the fact that Section 2(k) as amended vide U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019 will have only prospective operation and hence it will not affect those employees working in Krishi Vigyan Kendras who were already recognized as 'Teachers' in terms of the decision of the Board of Management of the University. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that in pursuance of the Government Orders/letters dated 14.06.2022, 29.07.2022 and 10.11.2022 the petitioners could not have been made to retire on their attaining the age of 60 years. (25) For the discussions made and reasons given above, we are of the opinion that the Orders dated 11.11.2022 which are contained in Annexure Nos.3 and 4, whereby the petitioners have been retired on their attaining the age of 60 years, cannot be sustained. (26) Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 11.11.2022 passed by the Director, Administration and Monitoring of the University as are contained in Annexure Nos.3 and 4 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. (27) The petitioners shall be allowed to continue to serve on their respective posts till they attain the age of 62 years. They shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits which would have accrued to them had the orders dated 11.11.2002 not been passed. 10. Mr. (27) The petitioners shall be allowed to continue to serve on their respective posts till they attain the age of 62 years. They shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits which would have accrued to them had the orders dated 11.11.2002 not been passed. 10. Mr. S.S. Lingwal, learned counsel appearing for the University supports the said submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that all the questions which fall for consideration in the present writ petition have been answered by this Court in the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 350 of 2023 and Writ Petition (S/B) No. 327 of 2023. 11. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, however, submits that the judgments rendered in the aforesaid Writ Petitions are distinguishable on facts, therefore, reliance placed by petitioners on those judgments is not correct. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgments rendered in the aforesaid two Writ Petitions, we are of the opinion that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is similar to the issue which has been decided in WPSB No. 327 of 2023. The said Writ Petition was filed by persons who were appointed as Assistant Professors in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology in a project funded by ICAR. They were given benefit of increased age of superannuation, available only to Teachers as per Government Order dated 20.09.2013. But, their services were abruptly brought to an end pursuant to decision taken by State Government vide order dated 04.07.2023. 13. Thus, the present Writ Petition is decided in terms of judgment dated 15.04.2024 rendered by this Court in WPSB No. 327 of 2023. The impugned order dated 04.07.2023 passed by respondent no. 1 and the consequential orders passed by the University are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. Petitioners were appointed as Teacher, therefore, they shall be entitled to the benefits admissible to the Teachers of the University.