SURESH KUMAR SUD Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second round of battle for the petitioners who happen to be in the Research Faculty as Scientific & Design staff with respondent No.3, namely, the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the IIT, Delhi ). Admittedly, there are two well-defined services; one is the teaching cadre? and, the other the scientific cadre?, though both the teaching staff? and the scientific & design staff? get inducted into the service under one common codified Act, Statutes, Rules and Regulations. The main job of the petitioners who are in the scientific cadre is to conduct research and promote development activities. In contradistinction to the above, the teaching cadre is primarily devoted to teaching and Professors are selected for their knowledge and ability to be effective teachers and for them, research is an ancillary activity.

(2.) It appears that the IIT, Delhi was facing shortage of teaching staff and so it started engaging the members of the scientific & design staff to take to teaching assignments, though not on regular basis. This, however, created a problem. The problem first arose when the pay scales of the teaching staff were increased but not of the research and design staff. Aggrieved by that, they filed a writ-petition in the High Court, titled Dr. Bej Nath Gupta and others Versus Government of India & others, 1996 3 AD(Del) 167. The High Court feeling that since the services of the research and design staff were being utilized for teaching purposes, invoked the principle of equal pay for equal work and accordingly held that they, too, should be equated with the teaching staff in the matter of salary. That was the first round.

(3.) It so happened that respondent No.1, namely, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development decided to raise the retirement age of the teaching staff from 62 to 65 years. Hence, vide communication dated March 23, 2007, it inter-alia informed the Secretary, University Grants Commission, that in the light of existing shortage in teaching positions in the centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education, and in the context of Government?s decision to expand the capacities of such Institutions for increasing access to higher education, it had been decided that the age of superannuation of all persons who are holding teaching positions on regular employment against sanctioned posts as on March 15, 2007 in any of the centrally funded institutions in higher and technical educations shall be increased from 62 to 65 years. It was made clear in paragraph-3 of the said communication that the enhancement of retirement age was to apply only to persons in teaching positions against posts sanctioned to Centrally funded higher and technical education institutions coming under the purview of the Ministry, in order to overcome the shortage of teachers. It appears that on receipt of the aforementioned communication, clarifications were sought by some Universities whether the enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years also applied to those who were holding posts equivalent to teaching posts but were not actually engaged in teaching in the centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education. The Government of India vide its letter dated April 19, 2007 to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, clarified that decision to enhance the age had been made in order to overcome the shortage of teachers and was applicable only to the teachers in centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education, who are actually engaged in teaching classes/courses/programmes of study in such institutions. It further clarified that the provisions of the Ministry?s letter dated March 23, 2007 were not applicable to any other categories of employees, notwithstanding the fact that the posts they held might be considered as equivalent to the teaching positions. In the meanwhile, the IIT, Delhi basing itself on the letter dated March 23, 2007, issued notification dated March 30, 2007 and thereby enhanced the age of retirement of its scientific and design staff from 62 to 65 years. This was objected to by the Government of India and in response thereto, the IIT, Delhi vide letter dated September 17, 2007 addressed to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development tried to justify its decision on the ground that the situation at IIT, Delhi was very different from that at other IITs, as the members of its scientific and design staff were engaged in teaching courses at UG and PG levels and guiding PhD research. The Government of India remained unconvinced. On February 29, 2008 it wrote to the Director, IIT, Delhi once again clarifying that the Government?s approval for the enhanced age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years was applicable only to the teaching staff and to none other category of employees though considered to be equivalent to teachers. The letter went on to say that the enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years could not be extended to any category of employees other than Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors, and that the spirit of the Government?s decision was based on the basic premise of shortage of faculty. Faced with this letter of February 29, 2008, the IIT, Delhi on April 02, 2008 withdrew its earlier order enhancing the age of superannuation of scientific and design staff from 62 to 65 years. Hence, this writ-petition by the petitioners seeking quashing of order dated April 02, 2008 and a direction to respondent No.1 not to interfere in the management and affairs of IIT, Delhi.