Allahabad High Court
Vice Chancellor Chandra Shekar ... vs Dr. Ved Prakash Bajpai (Asst. ... on 26 July, 2023
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49143-DB
Court No. - 9
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 529 of 2023
Appellant :- Vice Chancellor Chandra Shekar Azad University Of Agriculture And Technology, Kanpur And Others
Respondent :- Dr. Ved Prakash Bajpai (Asst. Professor) And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Uttam Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Dwivedi,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
(C.M.A. No.1 of 2023: Application for Condonation of Delay)
1. Heard Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellants-Chandra Shekar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as "University"), Sri Amit Dwivedi, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for State/respondent No.4.
2. It has been prayed by the learned counsel representing the appellants that the office has reported a delay of 21 days in filing this special appeal and accordingly having regard to the relevance of the matter, delay may be condoned.
3. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.1 to 3 does not have any objection if delay in filing this special appeal is condoned.
4. Cause shown being sufficient and in absence of any objection, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay in preferring the special appeal is hereby condoned.
(order on appeal)
5. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the respondent nos.1 to 3 are a teaching or non-teaching staff working with the University. By means of an order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University it was observed that the employees in the University working on the post of Research Assistant, Senior Research Associate, Research Associate, Junior Research Associate, Senior Technical Assistant and Technical Assistant etc. are non-teaching staff and accordingly in terms of the Rules, they may be superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years. This order dated 12.04.2023 became the subject matter of challenge in various writ petitions, including Writ-A No.3724 of 2023 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
6. Learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petitions by means of the judgment and order dated 19.05.2023 in terms of similar issue decided on 17.05.2023 in Writ A No.3279 of 2023. It is this judgment and order dated 19.05.2023 which is under challenge before us in this special appeal. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has categorically recorded a finding that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 prior to passing the order which was under challenge in the proceedings of the writ petition whereby services of respondent Nos.1 to 3 were disturbed adversely in relation to various aspects including in terms of their date of retirement. While quashing the order dated 12.04.2023, learned Single Judge has also provided that the respondents therein (appellants herein) shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
7. So far as the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the order dated 12.04.2023 was passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the said findings. However, what we further notice is that as a result of the judgment and order dated 17.05.2023, respondent Nos.1 to 3 and other similarly circumstanced employees of the University would be allowed to serve the University till they attain the age of 62 years treating them to be teaching staff though there is no adjudication by learned Single Judge on the issue as to whether respondent Nos.1 to 3 falls in the category of teaching staff or non-teaching staff. Dependent upon determination of this issue, the entitlement will flow to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 either to work and discharge the duties with the University upto the age of 60 years or upto the age of 62 years.
8. In the aforesaid view of the mater, we dispose of this special appeal with the following directions:-
I. The appellants-University shall give a show-cause notice to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 within a week from today spelling out the grounds on the basis of which it intends to treat respondent Nos.1 to 3 as belonging to non-teaching staff.
II. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on receipt of notice shall furnish his reply within ten days thereafter.
III. On receipt of reply, the matter shall again be considered by none other than the Vice-Chancellor himself who shall take a decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a month.
IV. Till the decision is taken by the Vice-Chancellor afresh under this order, status quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties, however, further continuance and other entitlements relating to other service benefits of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall be dependent on the outcome of the decision to be taken afresh by the Vice-Chancellor.
V. We categorically observe and direct that the time-line being stipulated in this order shall strictly be followed by the authorities of the University and for even a slightest deviation from the terms of this order, the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall personally be liable.
VI. We further direct that in case the decision under this order is taken by the Vice-Chancellor in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, the period from the date the respondent Nos.1 to 3 attains the age of 60 years till decision is taken afresh shall be treated to be regular for all purposes and all service benefits.
VII. We further direct that respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall fully co-operate with the proceedings to be drawn under this order for taking a decision afresh.
VIII. There will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.7.2023
Shubhankar
