R.N. SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved with the order dtd. 6/8/2021 (Annexure P1), the instant petition has been moved by the Petitioner.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are that the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist by Respondent 2/University on 6/8/1988. As per the applicable statute, his appointment was on a teaching post and he imparted teaching. As per the channel of promotion, he was promoted to the post of Professor/Principal Scientist and was also posted at different places. On 15/3/2007 also, the Petitioner was holding a teaching post and was posted at Jagdalpur. The Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Service Regulations for Recruitment and Upgradation of Teachers/Equivalent Cadre and Administrative Posts, 2009 (henceforth '2009 Regulations') was brought into force with effect from 17/8/2010 and prior to that the Petitioner was appointed/promoted as Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist and after 2009 Regulations he was designated as Associate Professor/Senior Scientist on 4/7/2012. He also got promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme on 20/9/2012. On 24/3/2009 (Annexure P5), he and his colleagues, namely, Dr. Hemant Kumar Awasthi and Dr. R.U. Khan were appointed as Programme Coordinator at Krishi Vigyan Kendra of Respondent 2/University. Both Dr. Hemant Kumar Awasthi and Dr. R.U. Khan, who were aged about 64 years at the time of filing of the instant writ petition, were working with Respondent 2/University. In the similar circumstances, Dr. Smt. Kiran Gupta, Dr. J.S. Urkurkar and Dr. C.R. Gupta, who were also appointed as Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist, have continued to work till the age of 65 years and have been retired from services after attaining the age of 65 years. Vide notification dtd. 23/3/2007 (Annexure P8), the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education enhanced the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years for teaching positions on regular appointment against sanctioned posts. The Petitioner, who was appointed on a teaching position, in his entire career, remained connected with teaching position. Therefore, as per the notification dtd. 23/3/2007, he should have been retired on his attaining the age of 65 years. But, Respondent 2/University retired him on completion of 62 years only. In his first round of litigation, he preferred a petition, being Writ Petition (S) No.2694 of 2021, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 21/6/2021 directing him to make a fresh representation to Respondent 2/University. He made a representation, which has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd. 6/8/2021 (Annexure P1). Hence, the instant petition.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the post of the Petitioner was a Professor/Senior Scientist and was a teaching position on regular appointment against a sanctioned post. On 15/3/2007, i.e., the cut off date, as mentioned in the notification dtd. 23/3/2007 (Annexure P8), the Petitioner was working with Respondent 2/University connected with teaching position. Therefore, on this ground only, the Petitioner is entitled to get superannuation on the date of his attaining the age of 65 years.