Delhi High Court
Joginder Singh Verma vs Govt Of Nct Of Dlehi & Ors on 19 December, 2019
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 19th December, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 13433/2019
JOGINDER SINGH VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, Advocate
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DLEHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel(Services) with Mr. Nitesh
Kumar Singh, Advocate for GNCTD.
Mr. Anil Soni, Standing Counsel with
Mr. Devesh Dubey, Advocate for
AICTE/respondent no.6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 54518/2019 (exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM.APPL 54516/2019 (Addl documents)
3. The application is dismissed as not pressed.
W.P.(C) 12659/2019
4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the
order dated 03.09.2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (the
'Tribunal').
5. The petitioner was working with the Department of Training and
Technical Education (DTTE), Government of NCT of Delhi as a
Workshop Superintendent in the polytechnics since 20.08.1998. Upon
reaching the age of 60 years, he was retired from service by an order
dated 28.06.2019. This order was challenged by the petitioner before
the Tribunal.
6. According to the petitioner, 'Workshop Superintendents' enjoy the
same status as 'Lecturers'. In support of this contention, attention of
the Court is drawn to the Notification dated 5th March, 2010 of the All
India Council for Technical Education ('AICTE'). The relevant
paragraphs relied upon by the petitioner are extracted below:
"General
(i) There shall be designations in respect of teachers
in Polytechnics, namely, Lecturer, Head of the
Department and Workshop Superintendent.
.....
.....
Workshop Superintendent
Workshop Superintendent is treated at par with
Lecturers and is to be considered for upward mobility
similar to that of Lecturers.
....
....
Age of Superannuation:
(i) In order to meet the situation arising out of
shortage of teachers in Technical Institutions and
the consequent vacant positions therein, the age of
superannuation for teachers in Technical
Institutions has been enhanced to sixty five years,
vide the Department of Higher Education letter
No.F.No.1-19/2006-U.II dated 23.3.2007, for those
involved in class room teaching in order to attract
eligible persons to the teaching career and to
retain teachers in service for a longer period."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a reading of the
aforesaid paragraphs, which deal specifically with those designated as
'Workshop Superintendents', for the purpose of promotion and age of
superannuation, leaves no room for doubt that the retirement age for the
petitioner should be 65 years. He further submits that this fact was
rightly appreciated by the Tribunal in paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 of the
order. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:
"10. With this, the steps taken by the 1st respondent,
treating the post of WS on par with Lecturer at least in the
context of age of superannuation, got the seal approval from
the 6th respondent. The present stand taken by the 1 st
respondent that a WS can be treated on par with Lecturer, if
only he holds the qualifications stipulated through
notification dated 05.03.2010, in somewhat difficult to be
accepted. Such an interpretation would amount to reading
something into what is specifically mentioned in the
notification, as regards the post of WS, as extracted above.
xxxxxx
12. The only basis for the 1st respondent to deny the
benefit to enhance the age of superannuation to the
applicant is that he did not fulfill the qualifications
prescribed for the post of Lecturer. We find from the record
that no doubt whatever was expressed by the 1st respondent
in this behalf, much less any clarification was sought from
the 6th respondent. The net result is that the applicant is
entitled to be continued in the service up to the age of 65
years, subject, however, to the condition that in case the 6th
respondent stated that equation of the post of WS to that of
Lecturer in Polytechnics, shall be subject to the former
holding the qualification stipulated for the post of Lecturer,
a different situation may arise.
"13. We, therefore, allow the O.A. and direct the
respondents to reinstate the applicant within four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and continue
him in service till he attains the age of 65 years. This,
however, shall be subject to the condition that in case the 6th
respondent issues a clarification to the effect that the
equation of the post of WS shall be subject to the WS
holding the qualification stipulated for the post of Lecturer,
the applicant shall be liable to be retired from the date of
receipt of such a clarification, if any. It is made clear that
the applicant shall not be entitled to any back-wages but
shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service."
8. However, the petitioner submits that in paragraph 13, where it has been
stated that the petitioner would be continued in service till the age of 65
years but subject to the condition that AICTE may render a
clarification, was not required in view of the specific stand taken by the
AICTE in the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, more
particularly, paragraph 6, which is reproduced below:
"6. Incidentally, it is also mentioned that after 6 th CPC
notification, AICTE has also issued the notification dated
01.03.2019, where the post of Workshop Superintendent
has not been mentioned in the cadre of faculty in diploma
level technical institutions. This, however, does not mean
that the Workshop Superintendent has ceased to be at par
with Lecturer which was the case under the 6th CPC
notification. In other words, the provisions of 6th CPC
notification dated 05.03.2010 in so far as it relates to the
status on the Workshop Superintendent equivalent to
Lecturer still remains in force and the issue relating to
the age of superannuation has to be decided in
accordance with the relevant provisions laid down in this
regard in that notification as mentioned above as the
Govt. of NCT accepted the recommendations of 5 th CPC
in the matter of enhancement of age of superannuation
from 60 years to 62 years, the instant case should have
also been dealt with on the same analogy and the
applicant should not have been retired on attaining the
age of 60 years as the same is not in accordance with the
provisions given under AICTE notification dated
05.03.2010 which still subsists and is not overruled in
anyway by the 7th CPC AICTE notification dated
01.03.2019."
9. It is the petitioner's contention that this observation in para 13 of the
Tribunal's order nullifies the relief granted to him.
10. It so transpires that soon after the Tribunal rendered the decision by
order dated 03.09.2019, the Government of NCT of Delhi sought a
clarification from the AICTE in line with what was observed in the
order of the Tribunal dated 03.09.2019; and the AICTE in fact issued a
clarification on 25.09.2019 qualifying that the post of 'Workshop
Superintendent' will continue to be at par with that of 'Lecturer' for
purposes of benefits available to Lecturers by way of a Notification
dated 01.03.2019, provided however, that a Workshop Superintendent
would need to fulfil all other eligibility conditions required of Lecturers
such as qualifications, experience, publications, training etc. for the
purposes of continuing in service and for promotions. In effect,
therefore the benefit obtained by the petitioner from the Tribunal by its
order dated 03.09.2019 got nullified since by way of reasons clarified
on 25.09.2019 the petitioner was now required to have the
qualifications, experience, etc. of a Lecturer to be entitled to continue in
service till the age of 65 years.
11. Documents placed on record have also been relied upon to show that
the nature of duties carried-out by a Workshop Superintendent are
similar to those of Lecturers.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits, that a
clarification regarding the qualifications required for a Workshop
Superintendent to be treated equivalent to a Lecturer has been issued;
and in view of the clarification so issued by the AICTE, the petitioner is
not entitled to be employed till the age of 65 years; and further that if
the petitioner had any objection to it, the petitioner should have first
challenged such clarification. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
however that even if he challenges the clarification dated 25.09.2019,
the aforesaid paragraph of the order passed by the Tribunal would stand
in his way.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered
their rival submissions.
14. In view of the subsequent development which has taken place, the
effect of the order of the Tribunal has indeed been set to naught. In the
circumstances, we grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the
notification passed by the AICTE on 25.09.2019 before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal would decide the challenge without being affected by the
observations made in the impugned order dated 03.09.2019. The
petitioner would be entitled to raise all grounds which have been raised
in this writ petition, including subsequent developments and any other
ground which may be available to him, in accordance with law.
15. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
CM.APPL 54517/2019(stay)
16. The application also stands disposed of in view of the order passed in
the present writ petition.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
DECEMBER 19, 2019
pst
