The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has directed the state government to increase the retirement age of teaching staff in Lucknow University from 62 years to 65 years.
A Single Bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Dr Prem Chandra Mishra.
It is the case of the petitioners that they were entitled to be allowed to continue their services as teachers in the university concerned till the age of 65 years and relied on three identical orders passed by a coordinate bench of the Court in similar situations.
All the petitioners have common ground, that in all these cases, it was directed to the state Government to incorporate the necessary amendments in the respective university statues, so as to raise/ increase the age of superannuation from the existing 62 years to 65 years.
The petitioner, in the writ petition claims to have been working as a Professor (Psychology) in the University of Lucknow, wherein he superannuated on attaining the age of 62 years on 08.07.2020. However, since the petitioner was extended the session benefit, he actually retired on 30.06.2021.
Thus, the petitioner has filed the writ petition for the following relief:
“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 27.01.2020 issued on behalf of respondent University of Lucknow contained as Annexure – 12 to the writ petition, to the extent that it prescribe superannuation of the petitioner on attainment of 62 years of age.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties state to alter and modify the statutes of the Lucknow University providing for increase in age of superannuation of teachers in Universities and its affiliate Colleges from 62 years to 65 years in terms of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 and allow the petitioner to perform his duties of the post of Professor (Psychology), with consequential benefits of pay and allowances.”
(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature declaring the condition of point no. 2.3 of said Government Order dated 28.06.2019 as ultra vires and the age of superannuation of teachers including petitioner may be directed to be corrected as 65 years and extension of 2 years of service after attaining the age of superannuation may be given after completing the age of 65 years.”
It is the common submission of the counsels for the petitioners that the Government of India through the Ministry of Human Resources Development, department of Higher Education had decided to increase the age of superannuation for all persons holding teaching positions on regular employment against sanctioned posts as on 15.03.2017 in any of the centrally funded higher and technical education institute under the said Ministry.
In the said chronology, the Government of India, on the recommendation of the University Grant Commission has also decided to revise the pay scale of teachers in Central Universities subject to the various provisions of “Scheme of pay scales as contained in Government Order dated 31.12.2008”
In order to buttress their further submission, the Counsels for the petitioners have brought to the notice of this court, clause 8(f) of the scheme notified vide the aforesaid government order dated 31.12.2008, which also provides for the age of superannuation and acknowledges the age thereof to be 65 years.
He has also submitted that in pursuance of the government order dated 31.12.2008, the UGC in exercise of its power under Clause (e) and (g) of sub section (1) of section 26 of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956 has also framed the university Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic staff in universities and colleges and other Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher education) Regulations, 2010 dated 30.06.2010.
It has been claimed by the petitioners that the state of U.P has availed the financial assistance from the central Government to the extent of 80% for revising the pay scale of Teachers and others under the scheme and the regulations of 2010 has sought to be adopted by the state of U.P vide various government orders dated 31.12.2010, 28.05.2015, 22.11.2016 and 08.04.2017.
Thus, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the provisions related to increase in the age of superannuation of teachers working in the universities college and institutions of higher education under the state legislature were never implemented by the state of Uttar Pradesh, while exercising its powers under section 50(6) of the U.P State Universities Act, 1973, although the State of U.P has availed all the financial assistance as made available to them by the Central Government.
It is the case of the petitioners that although the salaries of the teachers in the state universities including the Lucknow university were revised under the scheme, however the Lucknow university failed to modify its statutes so as to bring the age of superannuation of teaching staff in conformity with the said scheme/regulations.
The petitioner further submits that as late as on 13.09.2018, the state of UP while implementing the central government order dated 02.11.2017 has sought to avail the 50% grant of the financial burden relating to recommendation of the 7th central pay commission, which as per clause 12 provides for existing provisions on superannuation and re-employment, however the state of Uttar Pradesh has failed to implement the said regulations in letter & spirit.
It has also been submitted that the grant of financial burden of the central government was subject to implementation of the regulations by the state government and universities and colleges concerned as the scheme was a composite scheme and cannot be implemented in piece-meal.
Having heard the counsels for the parties at length, the court found that the issue relating to the case is no longer res integra, as it already stands decided by at least three judgment/order of the court, which has been referred by the counsels for the petitioner.
Further, the court found that the judgment of the court was based on a finding returned by the Uttarakhand High Court, which has considered the issue in the correct perspective, wherein it was held that the members of the teaching staff of the university of the state of Uttarakhand have acquired a right in their favour to have their age of superannuation increased to 65 years and such right can be enforced through a mandamus under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The judgment passed by the court or the Uttarakhand High court is squarely applicable to the facts of the case.
The court also found that the Apex court has dealt with the issue in a very lucid and crystal-clear manner, wherein it has certainly clarified that the states are free to decide as to whether the scheme would be adopted by them or not and there was no automatic application of recommendation made by the UGC.
However, it also clarified that if any petitioner, who claims any benefit under the scheme without the responsibility attached thereto, should also fail, which also meant that the scheme has to be implemented in a composite manner and not in a piece-meal manner as is being suggested by the Respondents.
Thus, in the opinion of the court, the state cannot pick and choose a part of the scheme to its liking and not implement the other part of the scheme. Both the responsibility and the benefit have to go side-by-side and have to be dealt in a composite & together manner as has been held by the Apex Court, provided that the state is free to decide whether to implement the scheme or not.
The Court observed that the state of Uttar Pradesh has already taken the benefit of the scheme of UGC and is now refusing the responsibility of increasing the age of superannuation.
In view of the facts & circumstances, the Court directed that the Respondent state of Uttar Pradesh will get the statutes of University of Lucknow altered providing for an increase of age of superannuation of the members of teaching staff from 62 years to 65 years, preferably within a period of three months. The petitioner shall continue to work on his post, if they are working, till the appropriate decision is taken by the state Government as indicated above. The impugned letters issued on behalf of the university or the state Government shall abide by the direction of the court passed in other identical matters of Dr Devendra Narain Mishra case, Chandra Mohan Ojha case and Dr Anil Kumar Singh case as mentioned supra.
As an upshot to the aforesaid observation, the Court allowed these petitions.