Dr. J.P. Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And
2024 Latest Caselaw 1005 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Dr. J.P. Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And on 21 May, 2024

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                 NAINITAL
       Writ Petition (S/B) No. 344 of 2023

Dr. J.P. Singh                           ...Petitioner

                           Versus

State of Uttarakhand and
Others                                      ...Respondents

Mr. A.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General for the
State.
Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate for G.B. Pant University.

                                               Date: 21.05.2024


Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble PankajPurohit, J.

(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for records and quash the office order dated 12-07-2023 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent no. 4, so far as it relates to the petitioner, by which the petitioner has beensuperannuated before attaining the age of 65 years.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to not superannuate the petitioner before attaining the age of 65 years in pursuance of office memo dated 04-07-2023 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, issued by the respondent no.1, since the petitioner comes under the definition of teacher as per provisions Section 2 (k) read with Section 28

(c) of Chapter-XII and section 4(d) of chapter XIII of the (Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodygik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam), 1958.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for records and quash the consequential orders dated 14-07-2023 and 15-07-2023 contained in Annexure-13 & 14 to the writ petition passed by the respondent nos. 5and 6.

iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to serve as Professor, Vegetable Science in the Department of Vegetable Science till he attains

the age of 65 years with all consequential benefits.

v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare that part of the office memo dated 04-07-2023 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, issued by the respondent no.1, is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of Section 2 (k) read with Section 28 (c) of Chapter-XII and Section 4(d) of Chapter XIII of the Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodygik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam), 1958, by which the respondents superannuated the petitioner before attaining the age of 65 years, so far as it relates to the petitioner.

vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare action of the respondents to superannuate the petitioner before he attaining the age of 65 years is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of Section 2 (k) read with Section 28 (c) of Chapter-XII and section 4(d) of chapter XIII of the Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodygik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam), 1958.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor (Vegetable Breeding) in Department of Horticulture, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology w.e.f. 25.10.1991. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed on the recommendation of Selection Committee constituted as per provisions contained in clause 4(d) of Chapter XIII of the statutes of the University against a project funded by Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR). In the appointment order dated 25.10.1991, it is mentioned that petitioner will have to abide by Regulation on Code of Conduct for Teachers of the University and further that he will also have to abide by the Act, Statutes and Rules of the University.

3. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor (Vegetable Science) in the pay- scale of 16,400-22,400 vide order dated

13.11.2001 passed by Chief Personal Officer of the University. By a subsequent order dated 18.10.2003, he was asked to look after the duties and responsibilities of Joint Director (Research) and it was further provided that his salary and service condition will remain unchanged. Thereafter, vide order dated 05.07.2007, petitioner was assigned additional charge of Joint Director, Vegetable Research Center and subsequently vide order dated 03.10.2009, petitioner was assigned duties of Director (Administration). However, in all these orders, petitioner‟s designation was mentioned as Professor (Vegetable Science).

4. State Government had increased the age of superannuation of Teachers of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology from 60 years to 65 years vide Government Order dated 20.09.2013 and petitioner was given benefit of the said decision and he was permitted to continue in University service after completing 60 years of age. The benefit of increased age of superannuation was withdrawn from the petitioner pursuant to Government Order dated 04.07.2023 issued by respondent no. 1 and petitioner was made to retire w.e.f. 28.02.2019 vide order dated 12.07.2023 passed by Chief Personal Officer, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has challenged the Government Order dated 04.07.2023 and the consequential order dated 12.07.2023 passed by Chief Personal Officer of the University. Petitioner has also challenged

the consequential orders dated 14.07.2023 passed by Director, Research and order dated 15.07.2023 passed by Head of Department, Vegetable Science Department, whereby, petitioner was relieved.

5. The Government Order dated 04.07.2023 impugned in this Writ Petition provides that increased age of superannuation i.e. 65 years shall be available to Teachers of the University and University‟s employees who do not come within the definition of Teacher, shall be retired at the age of 60 years. Thus, the sole question, which falls for consideration of this Court, is whether petitioner comes within the definition of Teacher of the University.

6. Section 2(k) of the Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam), 1958 defines Teachers, which is extracted below:-

"2(k) „Teacher‟ means a person appointed or recognized by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension programmers and includes a person who may be declared by the statutes to be a teacher; and"

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner responded to Employment Notice No. 1 of 1991 issued by Chief Personal Officer on behalf of the Competent Authority in the University and petitioner was selected by a Selection Committee constituted as per Clause 4(d) of Chapter XIII of the statute of the University; petitioner was appointed against the post of

Associate Professor and he was thereafter promoted as Professor, therefore, at the fag end of his service career, he cannot be treated as serving against a non-teaching post.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the orders issued from time to time, whereby, petitioner was assigned duties of administrative positions in the University in which his designation is referred as Professor.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is a permanent employee of the University, therefore, he could be removed from service in accordance with Clause 4(e) of Chapter XV of the statutes of the University. Clause 4(e) of Chapter XV states that service of the permanent employee of the University can be terminated only for proved misconduct or abolition of posts.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 10(7)(b) of the University Act, Board of Management is the Appointing Authority in respect of members of academic staff of the University; petitioner was appointed with the approval of Board of Management, therefore, he could not have been removed without approval of the Board of Management. He submits that the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by Chief Personal Officer, whereby, petitioner was made to retire was without approval of the Board of Management.

11. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University by its Additional Chief Personal Officer in which it is admitted that petitioner was appointed as per clause 4(d) of Chapter XIII of the statutes of the University and he was also confirmed in the University services. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that ICAR sanctioned NARP sub-project vide letter dated 29.12.1981 for strengthening the research capabilities of the Universities; the State Government vide Government Order dated 30.03.1982 communicated its administrative approval for NABH project and vide letter dated 23.09.1982 and Government Order dated 22.09.1982, State Government had given concurrence for filling up the posts already provided under NARP sub-project. In paragraph 7 of the said counter affidavit, it is mentioned that after completion of NARP project, the personal engaged in the project were to be adjusted/absorbed in the University budget as per tripartite agreement dated 29.02.1989 between ICAR, Government of Uttar Pradesh and University.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

(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

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.

13. Learned counsel for the University submits that petitioner was appointed as

Associate Professor and at the time of passing of the impugned order, he was holding the post of Professor, therefore, the petitioner is a Teacher as per the definition given under Section 2(k) of the University Act.

14. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that since petitioner was appointed in a project funded by ICAR, therefore, he cannot be treated as Teacher.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

16. Mr. S.S. Lingwal, learned counsel appearing for the University supports the said submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

17. 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 petitioner on those judgments is not correct.

18. 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 serviceswere abruptly brought to an end pursuant to decision taken by State Government vide order dated 04.07.2023.

19. 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. Petitioner was appointed as Teacher, therefore, he shall be entitled to the benefits admissible to the Teachers of the University.

(PankajPurohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 21.05.2024

U.U.