High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court issue an interim direction directing the respondents to Petitioner upto 60 years duly suspending the imp n" Uo Hn Slt a 2t2r.11t 08183 dated 4 1 '2019 and the or noti"", in Rc No HR 2/62 6t2O12tRF dated 23 10 201 8 so far concerned pending disposal of the above W'P' cumstances stated may be Pleased to forthwith continue ugned orders in ders of retirement as the Petitioner is Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' P' V' RAMANA counser ror the Respondent Nos. {&2: sRr counselfor the Respondent No'3: "t The Court made the following: ORDER REDDY il}iS$iiltltAR t^orf;J[=ril"r?toHEALTH AND ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA UTRITPETITION No, t62360F 20t9 OR ER: D Initially, this Writ petition is filed to declare the action of Respondent _ Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences in not extending the age of superannuation up b 60 / 62years on par with librarians working in State and Central Universities/AllMS and not re_designating to the category of Professor on par wilh librarian working in Statc Unrversilies and passing impugned order dated 04.O1.2OIg rejecting the claim of Petitioner for continuation and re_designation and notices for retirement with effect trom 31.72.2019 arbitrary and viojative as illegal, rssurng Constitution of India and entitled to continue up attendant benefits. of Articles 14, 16 and 2i of the consequently direct that petitioner is to 60 years with all consequential 2 order dated Thereafter, the aforesaid prayer was amended uid.e 16.10.2023 in IA.No. 1 ot 2023, as ,,Declaring action of Respondent ln not extending superannuation up to 60/62 years on par working in State and Central the age of with Librarians proceedings in Rc.No.PLl 1 13 /20 t 9 / Rer iremen r Dated 27 .O4.2O21 and Librarians working in State Universities and passu,rg impugned Universities, \ a I I t ) .J ' rbitrary and ol india and ntinue uP to rejectrng the claim of Petitioner [or orders daled 04 O 1'2O 19 continuatlon and re-designatlng and issurng notices lor retirement with effect from 31'12'2019 as illegal' a violative o[ Articles 14' 16 and 21 of Constitution Petitioner is entitled to co consequenth direct that 65 years with all conseqtlential attendalt benehts" tt is the case of Petitioner that he was 3. a Librarian rn Respondent No' 1 Institute by following process of selection on 18'O4'1989' and there after his servlces \Arere regularised and probatron was declared; as on the date of still continuing in the Post ol hling of Writ Petition' he ls Librarian rvithout there being any further promotional avenues' Petitioner's pay scale was hxed as per 4th Central PaY appointed as CommissionwhichwassubsequentlyrevisedasperSthCentral Pay Commrsston and once agarn, revised bY 6th Central Pa-Y" - + Grade PaY of Rs 46OO/- commission at Rs'9300-Rs'34'800 / and Ftnally, was revised as per 7fr Central Pay Reviston commission at Rs'27 ,49O l- + GP Rs 5400/ ' tt is the further case of Petitioner that pay scales provided in AIIMS on par lvith Central Pay Scales in respect of Grade - I Librarian was extended to him and that age of superannuation in AIIMS in rcspect of Grade Librarian is 60 years. petitioner claims that he should be treated as a Teacher within the meaning as I t I J ''! lnterpreted by the Hon,ble Apex Court tn P.S.Rcm Mohan Rqo v- Agricultural Uniaersityr. It is the Iurther contention of Petitioner that Government of A.p. in G.O.Ms,No.3S dared 16.06.2003 had adopted unrform re_designations to Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Assistant Librarians and Documentation Officers working in all Universities and accordingly, Universities are implementing the said G.O. and re_designated Librarians, Librarians, Assistant Librarians and Documenta[ion as Professors in Library and . Information Science, Professor in Library and Information Science and Professor in Library and Informa[ion Science. .lhe Deputy Officers Associate Assistant aforesaid GO applies to Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is a State Univcrsity and Government is having administrative control in various mattcrs as per the provisions of NIMS Act, 1989. Thereby, Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Assistant Librarians in State Universities are entitled to continue up to the age of 60 including Librarians working in Degree Colleges and Junior Colleges. As per the duties and responsibilities of the Librarian, it shall rnvariably be treated as Teacher under Section 2 of the Act. petitioner based on the above reasoning, requested Respondent No. 1 re-designation as professor and treat him as a person belonging | 11997) 8 SCC 35O \ I I I t 1 4 Staff and for extending age to Teaching / Academtc superannuation by ResPondent Pelitioner comes post and NIMS Petitioner is no

04.O1.2019 grvlng up to 62 yeats' however , the same was rejected the reason that No.1 on under Non-Faculty and is not working in UGC is not adopling UCC pay scales and lhereby' t entitled for re designation' ln the order of age of suPerannuatlon is not sPeciltcaliY dealt with same is deemed to be rejected Petitioner was served notice for retirement uide Rc'No'HR2 I 62612012 IRF rejectton, and the with the dated 23 10 2018 with eflect from 3l 12 '2019 4 On behalf of Respondents 1 and 2' respecttve It rs counter afhclavit was hled opposing the claim of Petitioner contended on behalf of ResPondent No 1 that. Petitioner is fullY aware ol the age o[ superannuation at the time of joining the job with Resporldent No 1' however' he did not put up any claim at the earliest point of time and approached this Court at the fag end just before his retirement Petitioner had not shown that Respondent No l had violated any of the Regulations governing the subject in issuing the notice of retirement' thereby the said notice Cannot be questtoned. It iS Stated, Petitioner should have availed alternative remedy by approaching the Executive Board of Respondent No. 1 with the same reasons as mentioned in the writ alfidavit ulde Regulation No. 49 of First Regulations which // I 5 _l ls tn terms of GO. Ms hereunder: - No. 403 dated 24.06.1989, extracted Regutation 49 T"nure o[ office, ,r. ,ot.'n" offi( ers, tea.her "r,d ".ptor..lu First Regalqtions of llr',IMS: ies and other Conditions o[ services of the ;:r:ilr{i:i.:j#i*:l#:r}lyjs"iie,Hr::,il,:t,:.,i;::rT:: I Therefore, the instant writ petition rs liable to be counsel lor Reddy, Iearned Heard Sri p.V. Ramana, learned dismissed as not maintainable. 5. petitioner as well as Sri Koya prabhakar Standing Counsel for NIMS. 6 The State of Terangana has promulgated ordinance No.3 of 2019 pertaining to amendment in relation to Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, i984, increasing the age of superannuation from 6O to 65 in cases of professors, etcetera working in government medical colleges, elcetera. As Re spondent No.l does not come under the ambit of government medical coilege, the amended provisions have no apprication to them, therefore, in view of such matter, Professors working in Respondent No. I who attained the age of superannuation of 6O years, have been retired without referencc to the said ordinance Respondent No. 1 institution is not a university included in the list of universities maintainecl bv 6 l I t under Section 2 (F) of UGC Act' UniversitY Grants Commissron contend that stafhng Pattern of 1956. It is also incorrect to Responclen[ institution is on the lines of Ancihra Pradesh State Unive rsitics :rnd that they are extending pay scales to its faculty on par with Central pay scales adopted by AIIMS faculty- Superannuation of the faculty in Respondent institution is 60 years in terms of Standing Order No' 27 arld' as regards Non- faculty, it is 58 and pay scales are regulated by NIMS Non- faculty Pay Rules' 1997 ' The Respondent institution has not adoptecl the age of superannuation of non-teaching staff maintainecl by AIIMS and the same is being regulated by Telangana State Liberalised Pension Rules' 1980' lhereby' the action of Respondent No l in superannuating Petitioner on completion o[ 58 years ol age is in accordance with the Standing Order 27 . Pay scales of Petitioner are wholly governed by the provisions contained in NIMS Non-faculty Pay Rules' 1997' Petitioner's pay' scale has been fixed as recommended by the Committeeconstitutedforthepurposeoflookingintothepay scales and his pay has been revised from time to time- The re is oniy one post of Librarian and right from the date of his appointment till the date of filing of counter afhdavit Petitioner is continuing as Librarian and at no point of time' he had raised any grlevance 7 7 The nature of duties attended by petitioner cannot AS the definition of .teacher, be treated as included under claimed by petitioner Further, the age of superannuation as marntained by the Andhra University cannot be extended to the case of petitioner. He has no right to demand Responden t to adopt on par with other universities which are covered under Ap Universities AcL as the said Act has no application to NIMS and Respondent came into existence by a specific statute. So also, issuance of notice of superannuation by Respondent Institution for Petitioner does not suffer from any error. NIMS has got its own Standing Orders more particularly, in relation to age of superannuation. petitioner has no right of whatsoever in nature to demand extension of benefits prevailing in AIIMS. Furthermore, the orders that are passed by this Court so also by the Hon,ble Apex Court are distinguishable and the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. In the order of rejection dated O4.O1.2O19 impugned in this writ petition, it has been made clear that G.o. Ms. No. 35 cannot be extended to petitioner as he has been appointed under NIMS Non_faculty pay Rules and not under UGC scales. A plain reading of the content of the said GO shows that Schedule is applicable to Librarians who are drawing UGC pay scales earlier designated AS lecturers 1n Library 11 I I t-t 8 Science uide G O Ms'No- 91' as such' Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition' g. During the hearing' learned counsel for Petitioner relied upon G O Ms'No 14' dated 20 'O2 '2O1O issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh The contents thereof pertain to implementation of the revised UGC Pay Scales' 2006 based on the recommendations ol the Sixth Central Pay Commission The said G.O. clearly states that Government of Andhra Pradesh has decided to lmplement the revised UGC Pay Scales' 2006 with effect from o1.o1.2006 aiong with arl the connected benefits and conditions as applicable However' the G O' relied upon by petitioner is not applicabre to the present case, for the reason is having its own administratlve that ResPondent No' 1 mechanisms under Statute The claim of Petitioner to be treated as a teacher/ professor and thus eligible for the revised UGC pay scales is not tenable - 10 Learned counsel for Petitioner had relied on G.O.Ms.No.208, dated 29 '06'1999 issued by the Government of The said Government Order pertains to Andhra Pradesh impiementation of the revised UGC PaY scales AS per 1996 of thrs recommendations Petitioner contends that provlslons G.O. are not being properiy implemented in his case and seeks appropriate directions for enforcement of benehts under the said / l I I I 9 order. However, G.O.Ms.No.2OB, which is of 1996 UcC pay revision cloes not serve as a guiding precedent in the present matter as the same is the subject of G.O.Ms.No. 14. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner, while referring to the Offi ce Memorandum dated 17.06.2002 uideproceedings No. F.9- 7 /2OOO(CP? 1), contends that Respondent No. I shalt follow UGC pay scales, overrooking the fact mentioned in the said memorandum that UGC will not provide any Development Assistance to Respondent No. 1, as it is an institute of Medical Sciences. It needs to be considered that UGC provides assrstance primarily for developmental purposes and does not directly implement or administer any financial disbursement system related to individual service benefits. There[ore. the responsibility cannot be attributed to Respondent No.1 under the framework of UGC,s mandate.

72. That apart, strong reliance IS placed G.O.Ms.No.35, designations Governmen t dated i6.O6.2O03 which was issued by the of Andhra pradesh to adopt uniform re- librarians, assistant librarians, deputy librarians and documentation officers The purpose of the said G.O. is that the government had decided to adopt uniform designation by re-designating the post of Universit5r librarian professionals who are drawing UGC Scales, subject to condition ) J I I l 10 that there is no financial commitment on the part of the government, apart from other conditions This particular G'O is also not helpful to the case of Petitioner for the reason that he is not drar.l,ing salaries as per UGC scale' For the aforesaid discussion on the G Os issued by 13. the State of Andhra Pradesh and in view of the lacts and circumstances, this Court comes to a conr:lusion that Respondent No.1 has been governed by the statute' In view of Regulation 49, the action of Respondents 1 and 2 ir'L superannuating Petitioner upon completion of 58 years is wholly in accordance with Standing Order 27, thereby the case of Petitioner cannot be a6cepted and the relief sought is liable to be rejected. During the hearing, Peti[ioner hled orde r dated 14. 27.O4.2O21 whereunder there was a proposal to enhance superannuation age from 58 to 61 years in respect of Non- faculty personnel in Respondent No'1 uide Resolution No 1582 dated 31.O3.2O2I and, the same shall be made applicable to his case. This Court is not in agreement with the same for the reason that the said order cannot be retrospeclively implemented and it should be implemented prospectively' Thereby the said order of Respondent No.1 is also not of help to Petitioner. i I i ,l:,' .a:' I I I -7 II 15' Furthermore, proceedings dated 04.o1.2019 was not challenged by petitioner wherein Respondent No. 1 categorically rejected his request dated O9. II.2olg, for re- designation of the post of Librarian as professor ol Library and Information Science treating the category of teacher/academic s taff instead of ministerial staff The said rejection order had become final

16. petitioner had relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court stated supra. The facts in the above case are distinguishable with that of the present case. In the above case, the Hon,ble Apex Court had dealt with the issue of considering physical Director as teaching post and declared that Physical Director is entitled to continue up to the age of 60. In the instant case, petitioner rs a Librarian and with full conscrousness, he had joined the employment considering all the aspects of his job. In the above case, it was herd that Physical Director post falls under the category of Teacher under Section 2 (22) (23) of A.p. Universities Act. The said ratio of the said case canno[ be made applicable to the instant case for the reason as discussed supra as Respondent No. I came into existence by a statute and is governed by the said statute, and the administraLion and functionaligr of Respondent institution is governed by the statute, Regurations framed thereunder and t \ t l I t I t 1, I ') \ Standing Orclers lt is aPParent on the face ol the record that there is no challenge to the statute' Regulations and Standing Regulations and Order. Thus, the Provtstons That apart, the Sanding Order are binding conduct of Petitioner amounts to application of doctrine of estoppel for reason that having joined employment with open eyes cannot turn around at the fag end of his career and approach this Court for the relief sought' of the statute ' on Petltloner

17. For the reasons discussed supra' Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed

18. ConsequentiY' shall stand closed' To, No costs. Miscellaneous Applications' if any //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. AMMAJI EPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER '1. One CC to SRl. p .V RAMANA, Advocate IoPUC 2. Two CCs to Gp FOR MEDICAL HEALTHANDFAMILY WELFARE High Court for the State of Telan gana, at Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRt. kOYA PRABHAKAR REDDY ( 4. Two CD Copies c FoR NIMS) [OPUC] t S BM J lg_- HIGH GOURT DATED:0310712025 ORDER WP.No.16236 of 2019 ( J o L) i i) l ttE S r..i I€ 18 [ lJE 2m * .oSSon ir; -\ ./ " r.// \ :, :.." DTSMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v tug