Dinesh Chandra Dimari And vs State Of Uttarakhand And
2024 Latest Caselaw 1006 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Dinesh Chandra Dimari And 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. 312 of 2023

Dinesh Chandra Dimari and
Others                                         ...Petitioners

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and
Others                                         ...Respondents

Mr. A.K. Verma and Mr. Girveer Chand, Advocates
for the petitioners.
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, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

"i. Issue a writ or writs, order or orders, direction and directions particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order being Order. No. 730/XIII-2/202314(02)/2016 dated 04.07.2023 issued by respondent no. respondent no. 1 i.e. order of State Government dated and the Order No. PMS(A)/AEO/7350 dated 06.07.2023 issued by the respondent university and Order No. PMA/CAO/F- 30/7376 dated 12.07.2023 passed by the respondent no. 5 (Annexure No. 1 (Colly) to the writ petition).

ii. Issue a writ or writ, order or orders, direction and directions particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to comply the mandate as provided in the Acts and Statutes of the GovindBallabh Pant Univrsity of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar particularly under 2(k) of Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodoyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam), 1958 and thereafter the Order No.-1- 32/2006-U-11/U-L dated 31.12.2008 issued under

Section 8(F) passed by UGC and order of the State Government dated 20.09.2013 by which the superannuation age of university Professor have been enhanced from 60 years to 65 years and allow the petitioner to continue their teaching as Professor till the age of 65 years.

iii. Issue a writ or writ, order or orders, direction and directions particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to compute the age of superannuation of petitioners at 65 yeas alongwith other retirement benefits viz., Gratuity, leave encashment, pension from treasury etc. from State Government budget."

2. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology issued Employment Notice No. 1 of 1991, whereby, applications were invited from eligible persons for appointment to different teaching posts. Petitioners participated in the selection process and on the recommendation of Selection Committee constituted as per clause 4(d) of Chapter XIII of the statutes of the University, they were appointed as Assistant Professor by separate orders issued by Chief Personal Officer of the University on 22.10.1991 and 11.11.1992.

3. It is not in dispute that petitioners were initially appointed against posts in National Agricultural Research Project (NARP), however, pursuant to order dated 01.12.1994, they were given salary from the general budget of the University. Services of the petitioners were confirmed thus they acquired status of permanent employee. Up to the year 2001, all petitioners were promoted as Associate Professors and they were promoted as Professor in the year 2008-09. Petitioner

No. 1 was appointed Head of Department (Horticulture) in the year 2011 for one year and he was thereafter assigned duties of the post of Joint Director Extension (Horticulture) which he held for three years. Similarly, other petitioners were assigned various administrative positions in the University from time to time.

4. Petitioners are aggrieved by Government Order dated 04.07.2023 and the consequential order dated 12.07.2023 issued by Chief Personal Officer of the University. By these orders, the benefit of increased age of superannuation has been withdrawn from them by holding that they are not the Teachers of the University. Age of superannuation of Teachers was increased from 60 years to 65 years vide Government Order dated 20.09.2013, and benefit of said decision was given to petitioners.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by Dr. M.S. Negi, Additional Chief Personal Officer on behalf of the University, in which it is admitted that all the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors in National Agricultural Research Project (NARP); NARP was a five year project of the World Bank and as per the tripartite agreement entered into between G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Government of Uttar Pradesh all employees appointed under NARP Project were

to be adjusted against posts of University/State Government after NARP Project coming to an end. It is further stated that petitioners were selected as per Clause 4(d) of Chapter 13 of the statute which is applicable to Teachers of the University. It is further stated that office order dated 12.07.2023 has been issued by the Chief Personal Officer of the University pursuant to the decision dated 04.07.2023, as the State Government has not recognized the employees initially appointed against projects as Teacher.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 deserves to be decided in terms of the aforesaid judgments.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance 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 applicable 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.

8. Mr. S.S. Lingwal, learned counsel appearing for the University also submits that 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.

9. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, however, submits that the judgments rendered in the aforesaid Writ Petitions are distinguishable on facts, however, he could not substantiate this contention.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgments rendered by this Court in the aforesaid two Writ Petitions, we are of the considered opinion that the issues raised in the present Writ Petition are identical to the issues decided in WPSB No. 327 of 2023. The said Writ Petition was also 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 also given benefit of increased age of superannuation available only to Teachers as per Government Order dated 20.09.2013, and their services were abruptly brought to an end pursuant to decision taken by State Government vide order dated 04.07.2023.

11. 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. Petitioners were appointed as

Teacher, therefore, they shall be entitled to the benefits admissible to Teachers of the University.

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

U.U.