Dr. Vineet Kumar Agnihotri vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 90 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Dr. Vineet Kumar Agnihotri vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 5 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                              2025:UHC:3418-DB



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL
               HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
                 HON'BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J


              WRIT PETITION (S/B) No.243 of 2016

Dr. Vineet Kumar Agnihotri                                        ...Petitioner
                                    Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others                                   ...Respondents


Counsel for the petitioner           :       Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned
                                             counsel.

Counsel for State                            Mr. Sushil Vashistha, learned Brief
                                             Holder.




JUDGMENT :

(PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J) Petitioner was initially appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officer on adhoc basis in the year 1986. According to him, he was subsequently appointed as Lecturer in "Rishikul Government Ayurvedic College, Haridwar" on 08.01.1990, and thereafter, he was promoted as Reader in the said college in the year 2005. Petitioner was informed by Campus Director of the concerned college vide letter dated 04.12.2015 that he would retire upon completing 60 years of age on 30.06.2016. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the said communication issued by Campus Director, on the ground that as per Government Policy, he is entitled to continue in service upon 65 years of age.

2. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that the age of superannuation of teachers serving in University governed by State Universities Act, 1973 was

2025:UHC:3418-DB

enhanced from 60 years to 65 years, however, said benefit is not applicable to teachers of Uttarakhand Ayurved University or the colleges affiliated thereto. He submits that Secretary, Ayush/Ayurved is the necessary party but has not been impleaded as respondent in the writ petition and petitioner has wrongly impleaded Secretary, Higher Education. Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by Sri Laxman Singh, Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department on behalf of respondent no.1 is extracted below:-

"6. That the said Rishikul Government Ayurvedic College, Haridwar does not fall under the jurisdiction of Higher Education Department and it is under the jurisdiction of Department of Ayush."

3. The government order dated 15.10.2012, whereby age of superannuation of teachers of State Universities was enhanced from 60 to 65 years is on record as Annexure no.2 to the writ petition. The said government order is addressed to Vice Chancellor, Kumaun University, Doon University and Uttarakhand Open University. Thus, the policy decision contained in said G.O. would not be applicable to teachers of Uttarakhand Ayurved University. No other government order is enclosed with the writ petition, which may indicate decision of the State Government to increase superannuation age of teachers of Uttarakhand Ayurved University.

4. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the impugned communication. However, writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority regarding his

2025:UHC:3418-DB

age of superannuation. If he makes representation within two weeks from today, the competent authority shall look into the matter, and take decision as per law within four months thereafter.

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J.

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

Dt:05th May, 2025 NR/