Pramod Shankar Joshi & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No.

2. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No. Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate, Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate, Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, Dr. B.M.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kamaldeep S.Sidhu, Dy.A.G., Punjab, for the respondent-State. Surya Kant, J.(Oral)

1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 16370, 18156, 20580 of 2009, 3301 and 1721 of 2010, as common issues are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 16370 of 2009.

2. The petitioners in this case are working as Associate Professors and Principals in the Government Colleges of State of Punjab. They seek a mandamus to direct the first respondent, Civil Writ Petition No. 16370 of 2009 -3- namely, the State of Punjab to implement the Government of India notification dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) whereby the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India, after taking into consideration the recommendations made by the University Grants Commission (UGC), has taken various policy decisions like revision of the pay of teachers and equivalent positions in Universities and Colleges, creation of the posts of Professors in the under-graduate (UG) and post-graduate (PG) colleges, as well as to enhance the age of their superannuation. These decisions have been taken with a view to improve the standard and quality of the higher education through out the country.

3. The relevant part pertaining to increase in the age of superannuation reads as follows:- “(f) Age of Superannuation: (i) In order to meet the situation arising out of shortage of teachers in universities and other teaching institutions and the consequent vacant positions therein, the age of superannuation for teachers in Central Educational Institutions has already been enhanced to sixty five years, vide the Department of Higher Education letter No. F.No.1-19/2006-U.II dated 23.3.2007, for those involved in class room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching career Civil Writ Petition No. 16370 of 2009 -4- and to retain teachers in service for a longer period. Consequent on upward revision of the age of superannuation of teachers, the Central Government has already authorized the Central Universities, vide Department of Higher Education D.O. letter NO.F.1-24/2006-Desk(U) dated 30.3.2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of Vice- Chancellors of Central Universities from 65 years to 70 years, subject to amendments in the respective statutes, with the approval of the competent authority(Visitor in the case of Central Universities). (ii) Subject to availability of vacant positions and fitness, teachers shall also be re-employed on contract appointment beyond the age of sixty five years up to the age of seventy years. Reemployment beyond the age of superannuation shall, however, be done selectively, for a limited period of 3 years in the first instance and then for another further period of 2 years purely on the basis of merit, experience, area of specialization and peer group review and only against available vacant positions without affecting selection or promotion prospects of eligible teachers.” Civil Writ Petition No. 16370 of 2009 -5-

4. The Union of India has, thus, apart from granting the higher revised pay scales, has further decided for enhancement in the age of retirement of the University/College teachers upto 65 years.

5. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Government of India through University Grants Commission provides substantial financial aid to the State Government to impart higher education in the State and therefore, it is imperative upon the State Government to implement the decision taken by the Union of India in its entirety and consequentially to enhance the age of retirement of the college teachers from 58 years to 65 years.

6. Learned State counsel on the other hand, opposes the petitioners’ claim and asserts that determination of service conditions including age of retirement of its employees exclusively falls within the domain of the State. He maintain that age of retirement has to be fixed keeping various other services also in view.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered view that the State Government is obligated to take a conscious policy decision with regard to increase in the age of retirement of the college teachers in terms of the Government of India notification dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P-1). Since the authorities in the State Government are yet to apply their mind Civil Writ Petition No. 16370 of 2009 -6- and take a decision one way or the other, I am not inclined to comment on the subject issue at this stage, rather deem it appropriate to direct the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Higher Education to put up the matter before the Competent Authority under the Rules of Business of the State and ensure that a final decision in this regard is taken as early as possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. In case the State of Punjab decides not to enhance the age of retirement of the college teachers as per the Government of India notification dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), in that event, the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Punjab, is directed to send a copy of such decision to the Union of India, who in turn shall then take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law.

10. Ordered accordingly. Dasti 6th April, 2010 Shivani Kaushik [SURYA KANT] JUDGE