[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Nagendra Prasad Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 January, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
2026:UHC:130-DB
Reserved on 23.12.2025
Delivered on 05.01.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 793 of 2024
Nagendra Prasad Sharma .............Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others ............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bist, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State/respondent no.1.
Ms. Mamta Bisht learned counsel for respondent nos.2 &
3/University.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Per.)
By means of the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed
by respondent no.3, whereby the date of superannuation
of the petitioner has been fixed as 31.01.2025. A further
prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the
benefit of re-employment till the end of the academic
session, i.e., 30.06.2025, in terms of paragraph 16.24 of
the First Statute of Kumaun University.
2. Brief facts, as borne out from the record, are
that the petitioner is presently working as Assistant
2026:UHC:130-DB
Professor, Physical Education Department/Sports Officer,
Kumaun University, Nainital. The date of birth of the
petitioner is 01.02.1960, and he was shown to be
superannuating on 31.01.2025 on attaining the age of 65
years. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Coach in
the Physical Education Department in the year 1990.
Subsequently, in the year 1998, he was appointed as
Deputy Sports Officer/Deputy Sports Secretary.
Thereafter, on 20.07.2008, after undergoing a regular
selection process, the petitioner was appointed as
Assistant Professor, Physical Education Department,
Kumaun University, on a substantive basis. The
grievance of the petitioner arises from the impugned
order dated 28.05.2024, passed by respondent no.3,
whereby the petitioner has been directed to retire on
31.01.2025, without granting him the benefit of
continuation till the end of the academic session, as
provided under paragraph 16.24 of the First Statute of
Kumaun University.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner attained the age of 65 years on
31.01.2025, and since his date of superannuation does
not fall on 30th June, he is statutorily entitled to continue
till the end of the academic session, i.e., 30.06.2025, and
such continuation is to be treated as re-employment;
2026:UHC:130-DB
that, the petitioner is a teacher involved in classroom
teaching, which is also evident from the letter dated
07.12.2024 issued by the Head of the Department,
Physical Education, recommending the petitioner for re-
employment; that, respondent no.3 has failed to consider
Section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act
read with paragraph 16.24 of the First Statute of
Kumaun University, rendering the impugned order illegal
and unsustainable. Reliance has been placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naveen Chand
Dhaundiyal vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2023) 12 SCC 463,
wherein it has been held that teachers retiring mid-
academic session are entitled to continue till the end of
the academic year.
4. He would further submit that Section 49 of the
Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act empowers the
Statutes to govern service conditions of teachers,
including age of retirement and the Paragraph 16.24 of
the First Statute of Kumaun University provides as
under:
"16.24 (1) The age of superannuation of a teacher of the
University shall be sixty-five years.
(2) No extension in service beyond the age of
superannuation shall be granted:
Provided that a teacher whose date of
2026:UHC:130-DB
superannuation does not fall on June 30 shall
continue in service till the end of the academic
session, i.e., June 30 following, and shall be
treated as on re-employment from the date
immediately following his superannuation till
30th June."
5. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3
would submit that Paragraph 16.24 applies only to
teachers who were in service prior to 01.08.1975, and
since the petitioner was appointed much later, he is not
entitled to the benefit; that, the petitioner has been
rightly retired as per the impugned order dated
28.05.2024. She would further submit that that
paragraph 16.24 has been deleted/amended vide
memorandum dated 24.02.2025 with the approval of the
Government/Chancellor, and therefore, no benefit can be
granted.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner continued in service and
was paid salary even on 30.01.2025, which clearly
indicates subsisting entitlement; that, the amendment
dated 24.02.2025 can operate only prospectively and
cannot divest the petitioner of a vested statutory right
which had already accrued on the date of his
superannuation.
2026:UHC:130-DB
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
8. It is undisputed that the petitioner is working as
an Assistant Professor, having been appointed through a
regular selection process, and is engaged in teaching
activities. Thus, he squarely falls within the definition of
a "teacher". Paragraph 16.24 of the First Statute, as it
stood on the date of the petitioner's superannuation,
clearly mandates that a teacher whose date of retirement
does not fall on 30th June shall continue till the end of
the academic session, and such continuation shall be
treated as re-employment. The contention of the
respondents that paragraph 16.24 applies only to
teachers appointed prior to 01.08.1975 is misconceived,
as the proviso relied upon has no application to the main
statutory benefit of continuation till the end of the
academic session.
9. The amendment/deletion of paragraph 16.24
vide memorandum dated 24.02.2025 is admittedly
subsequent to the petitioner's superannuation on
31.01.2025. It is a settled principle of law that service
benefits crystallized under an existing statute cannot be
taken away retrospectively, unless expressly provided.
The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naveen
Chand Dhaundiyal (supra) squarely applies to the
2026:UHC:130-DB
present case and fortifies the petitioner's claim.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated
28.05.2024 is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the
statutory provisions.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by respondent
no.3 is quashed. The petitioner shall be treated as
continuing in service by way of re-employment from
01.02.2025 till 30.06.2025, with all consequential
benefits.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
05.01.2026 05.01.2026
Mamta
MA
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b
, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8
dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.01.05 13:30:40
+05'30'
