R.Komala Rao v. Family Welfare Department

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Orders passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1623612019 dt.3 7.2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI KOYA PRABHAKAR REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI S.SATYANARAYANA RAO, The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT GP FOR SERVICES-III SC FOR NIMS THE HON'BLE THE CHIE.F WSTICE SRI APARESH KI,'MAR SINGH AND THE HoN'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUI)DIN Erur aEEEe! wp.1P+4 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Koya Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) appearing lor respondent Nor;. 1 and 2, Sri S.Satyanarayana R:ro, learned Government Plcader for Services-lll appearing for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

2. This intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the l,etters Patent is directed against the order dated O3.O7.2O25 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 16236 of 2O19, u-hereby the writ petition liled by the appellant seeking extension of his agc superannuation to 60162 years re-designation as Professor was dismissed. Pactual Backgrr>und

3. The appellant was appointed as Librarian :rt Nizam's Institute ol Me,Cical Sciences (NIMS) on 18.04. 1989. NIMS issued a retircment notice dated 23.lO.2OlB to tht: appellant stating that tris superannuation date was 31.12.2019 l (58 years). The appellant made a representation dated

09.11.2018 seeking re-designation of the post of Librarian as Professor treating the Librarian as teaching staff and for extension of retirement age upto 62 years on par with Sdate/Central Universities. NIMS rejected the representation of the appellant by letter dated O4.01.2019. The appellant superannuated on 31.12.2019 upon attaining the age of 58 years, in accordance with the then prevailing NIMS Regulations.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contcndcd that: (i) Librarians in State and Central Universities retire at 60 or 62 years. (ii) NIMS is a State University and should follow the same practice. (iii) The appellant should be re-designated as Professor in Library Science as per G.O.Ms.No.35 dated

16.06.2003. (iv) The duties of the appellant are academic in nature, akin to that of the teaching faculty and the appellant should be treated on par with teaching faculty. (v) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Romrrmohano Rao v. A.P. Agricultural Unioersitg reported as (1997) 8 SCC 35O heid that Physical I .) - Directc,rs are teachers; similarly, Librarians should be trealed as teachers.

5. - The le:rrn :cl counsel for the respondents su;rported the impugned orrler of the learned Single Judge and opposed the claim of tl-re appr:llant, stating: (i) NIMS is an autonomous institution governed by its o\r n Acl and Regulations. (ii) The arge of superannuation for non-faculty staff like the appella)rt, is 58 years as per Standing Order No.27. (iii) The appellant was never under UGC scales; hence, G.O.Ms.No.35 does not apply. (iu) The appellant's pay and service conditions were always governed by NIMS Non-Facult5r Pay Rules, 1997- 6 The lcarned Single Judge dismissed the writ- petition, holding inter llie l lat: a) NIMS is an autonomous institution with its own service conditions. b) The aptr:ellant was not under UGC scales and hence not entitl(j d to re-designation. c) The age of superannuation was rightly applied as per NIMS Regulations. l d) The doctrine of estoppel applies as the appcllant accepted the terms of service. Submissions

7. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds raised in the writ petition and vehemently contended that the appellant jirstlg, was subjected to discriminatory treatment vis, i-vis librarians in other universities and secondly, vis-A-vis the faculty employees of the same institute. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that since NIMS adopted the pay scales of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), lor both laculty and non faculty employees, there should not be any discrimination in the age of superannuation also.

8. The learned counsel for the appeilant further contended that the benefit of enhancement of retirement age to 6l years lor non-faculty employees by adoption of .G.O.Ms.No.45, Finance Department dated 30.03.2021 through the Resolution of the Executive Board dated 31.O3.2O21 should be made applicable to the appellant also.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the nature of duties of a librarian is academic and the l appellant ouqht to have been given parity with the faculty employees 1O. ' Per Contra, Learned Standing Counsel for NIMS supported the impugneci or<ler and submitted that NIMS is not a UGC funded universitv and that it is governed by its own statute. The learnt:d stzrnding counsel for NIMS contendecl that the appellant's service conditions are governed by NIMS Rules and not UGC norlns. The learned standing counsel lurther contended that the enhancement of retirement age to 61 years by adoption of Ci.O.Ms.No.45, Pinance Department, dated 3O.O3.221 throuqh Executive Resolution dated 30.O3.2O2 1, is prospective and <loes not apply retrospectively. 1 1. The k:arne<l standing counsel for NIMS contended that the appellant did nor challenge the service Regulations cluring his service and hzts f-rled the Writ Petition No. 16236 of 2019 on 28.07 .2019, 1us- five months prior to the datt: of his superannautiotr. Analvsis and Autonomy of NIMS and A licabili of UGC Norms

12. NIMS is established under the Nizani's Institute of Medical Scienct s ,\ct, 1989. It is an autonomous bodv with the 6 I power to frame its own service conditions under Regulation 49 of its First Regulations. Aithough it is recognized under Section 2(0 o.f the UGC Act, it does not receive UGC grants and is not bound by UGC pay scaies or service conditions. The appellant was appointed under and governed by the NIMS Non Faculry Pay Rules, 1997 , and not UGC scales. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.35, which applies only to UGC-scale employees, has no application to the zrPpellant Age of Superannuation

13. The age of superannuation for non-faculty staff at NIMS is 58 years, as per Standing Order No.27. This was explicitly communicated to the appellant at the time of his appointment and realfirmed in the retirement notice. The appellant did not challenge this regulation during his service tenure. The subscquent resolution dated 3l .O3.2021 , enhancing the rctirement age to 61 for non-faculty staff, is prospective and does not apply retrospectively to the appellant, who had already retired in 2O 19. Rc dcsignation as Professor

14. The appellant's claim for re-designation as Professor under G.O. Ms.No.35, Higher Education Departme nt, dated \ 1

16.06.2003 is untenable as the appellant was not drawing UGC pay scales. The said G.O. applies only to library professionals who are under UGC scales. The appellant's pay was always fixed under NIMS Rules, and the appellant never held a UGC-scale post. Discrimination an<1 Paritv with Other Universities

15. The appcl)ant's claim of discrimination is misconceivecl. NIMS is a distirLct institution with its own service <:onditions. The fact that librarians in other universities retire at 60 or 62 years is irrelcv.rnt, as those universities are governed by different statlltes and service rules. The appellant failed to demonstrate thtrt NIMS is obligated to follow the service conditions of o th,:r universities. Nature of Dutit:s and Status as Teacher

16. The appellant relied on the case of P.S. Ramaraaohana Rao (supra) I o argue that librarians should be treated as teachers. Hou,cvt'r, that case pertained to Physical Directors in an agricultural university, where the nature of duties included imparting inst ruction and guiding students. In contrast, the duties of a librzLrian at NIMS, as described in the I counter- affidavit, are primarilv administrative and supportive, not *l ,t I instructional, The definition of 'teacher' under the NIMS Act does not include librarians. Hence, the appellant cannot be equated u,ith teaching faculty. Doctrine of Estoppel 17 . The appellant accepted the terms of employment, including the age of superannuation of 58 years, without protest during his entire service. He approached the court only at the fag end of his career, just about 5 months prior to the date of his superannuation. This conduct attracts the doctrine of estoppel, as the appellalt cannot seek to unsettle settled conditions of service, at the very end of his tenure. Prospectivc EnheLncement of Retirement Aqe

18. The resolution dat€d 31.03.2021 enhancing the retirement age to 61 for non-factrlt5z staff is expressly prospectivc. It does not confer any right on the appellant, who had already rctired in 2O19.

19. For the foregoing reasons, we lind no merit in the appeal. The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition after a detailed and reasoned analysis. The appellant faiied to establish any legal right to extension of retirement age or t) re-designation. The writ appeal is devoid of merit eLnd is liable to be dismissed. 2O. . Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Conseclut:ntly, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closecl ,TRUE COPY// \: SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGI TION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI P V RAMANA. Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI KOYA PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC F R N|MS [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|||, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies BSR BS rt' * ,i i .t * l" + t ,c *. .; r3 a. .3 t \t a I t '1i x G t 6 HIGH COURT DATED: 22101t12025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1044 of 2025 1H E STrI€ ( c i o1NsI ?rl5 ( a D€S rATCi'\ 6_O DISMISSING TI{E WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS w al