Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmej Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh And ... on 23 December, 2022
118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-30172-2022
Date of Decision: 23.12.2022
Gurmej Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of Chandigarh and others ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present : Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Senior Advocate,
Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the
order dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure P-10) issued by respondent No.2,
whereby in violation of notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) as
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, conditions of service of the
petitioner, who is serving on the post of Associate Professor in respondent-
college has been changed to his detriment by adopting notification dated
28.09.2022 (Annexure P-9) as issued by the Government of Punjab, in view
of which retirement age of the petitioner is being fixed at 60 years, whereas
as per the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-6), the age of
retirement as per UGC Regulations is fixed at 65 years; along with certain
other prayers.
The prayer in the present petition is that the petitioners should
not be retired from service; in the college which is affiliated to the Panjab
University, till they attain the age of 65 years.
1 of 3
This Court finds that the identical issue has already been
considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench by a detailed judgment
running into 114 pages rendered in CWP No. 11988 of 2014, decided on
16.8.2016 titled as Dr. Bhura Singh Ghuman v. Panjab University,
Chandigarh and others, after considering all the issues sought to be
addressed before that Bench. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that
the claim raised by the petitioners in the present petition is squarely covered
by the said judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
notification dated 29.03.2022 to contend that the employees of Technical
University or Institutions governed by AICTE or Higher Educational
University or the Institutions governed by UGC are covered by this
notification, hence the petitioners are entitled to age of superannuation at 65
years as per the regulations framed by the AICTE and the UGC. However,
the very title of this notification makes it clear that this notification is meant
for employees of Union Territory of Chandigarh and is defining their
conditions of service. So the provisions relied upon by the counsel for the
petitioner relates only to the Government Colleges and the Technical
University under the administrative control of the Administrator of Union
Territory of Chandigarh. It has nothing to do with private but aided
institutions. Therefore, this argument of the counsel for the petitioner is
without any substance, and hence, liable to be rejected.
Although, counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 20447 of
2020 titled as Dr. Jogender Pal Singh and others v. Union of India and
others decided on 1.3.2021, however, that judgment is not relevant for the
2 of 3
purpose of cases relating to the Panjab University and its affiliated colleges
because that case is exclusively relating to the Punjab Engineering College,
which is a technical institute, statedly, established and controlled by the
Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in terms of the
judgment rendered in case of CWP No. 11988 of 2014, decided on
16.8.2016 titled as Dr. Bhura Singh Ghuman v. Panjab University,
Chandigarh and others.
(RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
JUDGE
23.12.2022
adhikari
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
