Jharkhand High Court
Samta Choudhary S/O Late Shiv Kumar ... vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 28 April, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:13544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.6109 of 2014
----
Samta Choudhary S/o Late Shiv Kumar Choudhary, Lecturer (Electrical
Engineering) Senior Scale, Government Polytechnic, Dumka, resident of
Principal's Residence, Government Polytechnic Campus, At, P.O., P.S.
& District-Dumka-814101 (Jharkhand) permanent resident of Village-
Bakari. P.O.-Karwan, P.S.-Udwantnagar, District-Bhojpur (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Department of Science & Technology, Nepal House, P.O. &
P.S.- Doranda, Town & District-Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand).
2. The Director, Department of Science & Technology, Government of
Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, Town & District-
Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand).
3. The Incharge Principal, Government Polytechnic, Dumka, At, P.O.,
P.S. and District- Dumka-814101
4. State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar,
Department of Science & Technology, Technology Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna
... ... Respondents
----
CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, AC to G.P.-V
----
ORDER
Reserved on: 07.02.2025 Pronounced On: 28 .04.2025
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for enhancing
the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 62 years to 65 years by
making it at par with the similarly situated teachers whose service conditions
are guided under the terms and conditions of the All India Council for
Technical Education and also in tune with the University Teachers of State of
Jharkhand (Annexure-3 & 4 read with Annexure-5) and to allow him to
continue in the service of the Government of Jharkhand till he attains the age
of 65 years i.e. till 31.01.2018 with all consequential benefits thereof. The
2025:JHHC:13544
petitioner has also prayed to allocate the services of the petitioner to the
Successor State of Bihar as per the option given by him for his final cadre
allocation.
Subsequently, when the State of Jharkhand took a decision to
enhance the superannuation age of teachers of technical institution during the
pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner, by way of filing an amendment
application being I.A. No. 3656 of 2017, which was allowed by this Court by
order dated 04.07.2017, has sought for quashing the date of
applicability/coming into effect of Memo No.2503 Ranchi dated 22.11.2016
[through which the superannuation age of teachers of the technical institutions
has been enhanced from 62 years to 65 years, Annexure-I.A.-8 which has
been made effective from the date of issue (22.11.2016) of the said
Resolution] and also prayed that it may be declared that under the powers
conferred upon the State Government through Article-162 and 309 read with
Item No.25 of the Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India, it is
bound to make the said Resolution (Annexure-8) effective for the instant
petitioner with effect from 26.12.2012 (Annexure-2 Series, 3, 4 & 5 to the writ)
or alternatively from 10.10.2013 (Annexure-9).
2. The petitioner, having been appointed as a Teacher fellow in
Electrical Engineering, had served the Government of Jharkhand in various
roles and superannuated as a Senior Scale Lecturer at Government
Polytechnic, Dumka. The Government of India and the UGC increased the
retirement age of teachers in centrally funded technical institutions from 62 to
65 years from 15.03.2007. Similarly, the AICTE notified the same for Diploma-
level technical institutions. While the Government of Jharkhand adopted the
AICTE-recommended revised pay scales for polytechnic teachers, it did not
raise their retirement age. It was decided that the decision would be taken
after finalizing the retirement age for State University teachers. The State of
Bihar has already increased the retirement age of similarly placed teachers to
65 years. Later, Jharkhand also enhanced the retirement age of State
University teachers to 65 years, but this benefit was not extended to
polytechnic teachers, including the petitioner. Under the Jharkhand Technical
Education Service Rules, 2013 (Rule 18), retirement age is to be aligned with
AICTE recommendations, subject to State Government decisions. Despite
repeated requests, the petitioner did not receive the benefit of increased
retirement age and hence approached the Hon'ble Court.
2025:JHHC:13544
Subsequently, during the pendency of the writ petition, the
Government of Jharkhand enhanced the retirement age of teachers
Government Polytechnic and Government Engineering College from 62 to 65
years vide Memo No. 2503 dated 22.11.2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the
Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, vide letter
dated 23.03.2007, enhanced the age of superannuation of teachers in
centrally funded higher and technical educational institutions from 62 to 65
years, effective from 15.03.2007, and the University Grants Commission
communicated the same for compliance to all Central Deemed Universities.
The AICTE, vide Notification dated 05.03.2010, issued Regulations applicable
to Technical Institutions, whereby the age of superannuation for teachers was
enhanced to 65 years, effective from 13.03.2010, in view of faculty shortages
and to retain experienced teachers. The said enhancement was based on the
Department of Higher Education's letter dated 23.03.2007. It is submitted that
although the Government of Jharkhand implemented revised pay scales for
Government Polytechnic teachers vide Resolution dated 31.03.2012, it
retained the superannuation age at 62 years and deferred any decision on
enhancement. Subsequently, the State enhanced the retirement age of State
University teachers to 65 years via Gazette Notification dated 26.12.2012
(Annexure-5) but the same benefit was not extended to Polytechnic and
Engineering College teachers. Despite an earlier resolution dated 31.03.2012
indicating that a decision on the retirement age of Polytechnic teachers would
follow the decision on University teachers, no such enhancement was granted
to Polytechnic teachers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a
similar matter, the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10834 of 2012 directed
the State of Bihar to consider Polytechnic teachers' claim for parity with
University teachers. Pursuant thereto, the Government of Bihar enhanced the
retirement age of Polytechnic and Engineering College teachers from 62 to 65
years with effect from 14.09.2012, and later gave it a retrospective effect from
31.07.2012, to ensure continuity of service for affected teachers. The
petitioner, being similarly situated, seeks similar relief on the ground of equal
treatment and non-discrimination. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly
submitted that the powers conferred on the executive of the state is
coextensive with the powers of the state legislatures and executive of the state
has no power to discriminate the petitioner by choosing an arbitrary date in
2025:JHHC:13544
contravention to the date already decided/ chosen by the state legislature.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted
that the State of Jharkhand has not made any policy decision to increase the
retirement age of engineering college professors from 62 to 65 years. The
petitioner has already retired on 31.01.2015 at the age of 62, so any future
decision to increase the retirement age will not apply to him. Any rule made by
the State of Bihar after the creation of Jharkhand (on 15.11.2000) does not
apply to Jharkhand employees. When the petitioner applied for the job, he
knew the retirement age was 60. Later, the State increased the retirement age
to 62 through a resolution in 2007, and this benefit was given to the petitioner.
He further submitted that the petitioner retired from his post as Lecturer at
Government Polytechnic, Dumka on 31.01.2015 after reaching the retirement
age of 62. Since he has already retired, his application has no merit and
cannot be considered for continuation in service. Thus, on these grounds he
prayed that the instant writ petition should be dismissed.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.J. Dharmaraj v.
Church of South India and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3617
has observed that the guidelines issued by the UGC and AICTE by itself are
not binding on the institutions funded by the state. In paragraph 9 of the said
judgment it was held as:-
9.Having considered the submissions advanced, we do not
find merit in the contention that merely because the UGC
and AICTE regulations were subsequently amended in 2010
and the age of superannuation for teachers in Technical
Institutions was increased to sixty-five years, the same
benefit would automatically extend to the Appellant. The
Appellant was working as Director in CSIIT which is affiliated
with JNT University which is governed by the laws applicable
in the State of Telangana. In this case, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) has decided to not adopt
the amendment increasing the age of superannuation to
sixty-five in their universities or colleges vide G.O.Ms. No.
40, Higher Education & UE-II Department, dated
28.06.2012. The Respondent No. 2 Institute is a self-
financing, Minority Educational Institution administered by
the Respondent No. 1 Church of South India, and it is
neither run nor funded by the Central Government. The
regulations governing the age of superannuation throughout
the State, the JNT University and its affiliated colleges
including CSIIT is sixty years of age and therefore, when the
teachers of JNT University are only to continue up to the age
of sixty years, the Appellant cannot be given special
consideration. CSIIT is an affiliated Institute of JNT
University. Its teachers cannot have their age of retirement
more than that of the teachers of the affiliating University. It
would create a serious anomaly, discrimination and
inequality. If the State Government itself has not adopted the
2025:JHHC:13544
amended regulations, the same cannot be applicable to the
CSIIT. Even CSIIT has not determined the age of retirement
of teachers to be 65 years.
6. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench
also in the case of Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, through its Secretary
vs. Dr. Mir Sadique Ali and others in Writ Petition No. 5944 of 2022 at
paragraph 72 thereof has held as under-
72. The above discussion leads to hold that AICTE is
empowered to make Regulations within the defined frame
work contained in Section 10 of the AICTE Act. The
subject of laying service conditions is outside the purview
which is left for the decision of respective State
Governments. Besides making recommendations about
the qualifications and standard of technical education, the
remaining service conditions of the teaching and non-
teaching employees of technical self financed Institutions
would be governed by the State Legislation. Therefore, it
is not possible to accept the view taken by the University
Tribunal holding that the age of superannuation for
appellant (respondent No.1 herein) is of 65 years. In view
of above the impugned judgment and order dated
05.08.2022 passed by the Tribunal in appeal No. A-
9/2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently,
appeal No. A-9/2021 stands dismissed.
7. From resolution dated 31.03.2012 issued by the Science &
Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand, it is noticed that the
though the respondents have adopted the notification dated 5th March, 2010
issued by AICTE but have excluded the provision for age of superannuation,
as would be evident from Clause 3 and Clause 9(iii) of the said resolution
dated 31.03.2012. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim for enhancing the age of
superannuation from 62 years to 65 years as a matter of right.
8. Further the Government of Jharkhand on 26th December, 2012
issued gazette notification, implementing the Jharkhand State University
(Amendment) Act, 2012. By the said notification age of superannuation of
teachers of University or college and those officers declared equivalent to
them by the statute of the university was enhanced to sixty-five years. But the
benefit of this notification also was not extended to Government Polytechnic
Teachers.
9. Subsequently, the Science and Technology Department, State of
Jharkhand vide Resolution under Memo No. 2503 dated 22.11.2016 has
enhanced the age of superannuation of teachers of Government Polytechnic
and Government Engineering Colleges from 62 to 65 years with effect from the
date of issuance of the said resolution, i.e., 22.11.2016. However, in the
2025:JHHC:13544
meantime, since the petitioner had superannuated on 31.01.2015, the
petitioner cannot claim the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation,
on the basis of the said resolution.
10. Considering the facts of this case and judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, since the petitioner has already been superannuated, I am of
the opinion that no benefit can be given to the petitioner and thus, this writ
petition stands dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
NAFR /Kumar/ Cp 02.
