HC comes to rescue of profs retiring at 65

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 6

Less than four months after their claim for continuation in service up to 65 years in Panjab University was rejected, the Punjab and High Court today made it clear that the appellant professors were entitled to full salary being earlier paid to them.

A Single Judge had earlier dismissed a bunch of writ petitions filed by professors and lecturers in Panjab  University and its affiliated colleges for permitting them to continue till 65.

Acting on their appeal, a Division Bench by way of an interim order had allowed the appellant professors to continue on a re-employment basis on salary drawn by them prior to the Single Judge verdict.  The order had further clarified that the appellants would continue without a break in service.

As the case came up for resumed hearing, senior advocates Gurminder Singh, RPS Bara, JS Gill and Sameer Sachdeva argued that Panjab  University had not released the emoluments as directed in the earlier interim orders. The court was also told that the appellants were being paid only half their salary. 

Responding to the assertions, senior advocate Anupam Gupta furnished an order, dated November 25, on the decision to release the salary being earlier paid to them, subject to the furnishing of an undertaking.

Taking up the matter, the Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudip Ahluwalia passed a detailed order clarifying the earlier order. The Bench ruled the word re-employment would not entail the retirement of the appellants. They would continue without break in service on the salary they were drawing prior to the Single Judge judgment.

A Single Judge had earlier made it clear that the Panjab  University teaching staff were required to leave service at 60. The Judge had dismissed a bunch of writ  petitions filed by professors and lecturers in Panjab  University and its affiliated colleges for permitting them to continue till 65.

Their claim was based on the Panjab  University Senate decision, UGC regulations, a circular coupled with the recommendations of a task force committee. Their stand was that Panjab  University was a centrally funded institution as more than 90 per cent grant was coming from the Union of India. The retirement age had to be 65 as per the UGC regulations, their counsel had all along been contending.

The Central Government, through the Ministry of Human Resource Development, had taken a specific stand that Panjab  University was not a centrally funded institution. In affidavits filed from time to time though Assistant Solicitor General Chetan Mittal, it was claimed that Panjab University was an inter-state body corporate as defined under the Punjab Reorganisation Act.

The decision to change the university’s status as a centrally funded institution required concurrence from the state of Punjab for the purpose of enhancing the age.