HC sets aside retirement of asst professors at 60

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Chandigarh, May 22

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the law made by the legislature will prevail in case of conflict with the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

The ruling came as a Division Bench set aside the action of retiring assistant professors serving in the Government College of Arts and Government College of Architecture in Chandigarh at the age of 60.

The Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma was listening to a petition on whether the notification — Conditions of Services of Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992, issued under proviso to Article 309, would hold the field even if it was in conflict with the AICTE Regulations, 2010 and 2019.

Dr Jogender Pal Singh and other petitioners stated that the Union of India and other respondents were wrongly retiring the petitioners from service by giving effect to the 1992 rules, which came into effect vide the notification dated January 13, 1992, issued by the President in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309.

Senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram with Arjun Partap Atma Ram argued on the petitioners’ behalf that the age of superannuation was 58 as per the 1992 rules. But the AICTE regulations, entitling the petitioners to continue till 65 with further extension up to 70, would apply.

The Bench made it clear that the proviso to Article 309 was only a temporary or stop-gap arrangement till provision was made by, or under, an Act regulating recruitment and service conditions.

The life of the rules framed under proviso to Article 309 was limited and governed the service conditions of the employees till relevant statutory provisions of the Act, and/or the rules or regulations framed there under, came into force. As such, the AICTE Regulations 2010/2019 and Architecture Regulations 2017 would apply in case of conflict with the 1992 Rules, the Bench observed.

It added the two colleges being run by the UT Administration, were imparting education in the field of ‘applied arts and crafts’ and ‘architecture’, as such, these would fall within the definition of technical institution. Hence, the AICTE regulations and the Architecture regulations would be applicable to the faculty of these colleges.

The Bench further stated that the services of the petitioners were governed by the AICTE regulations, according to which, the age of superannuation would be 65, with provision for five year extension subject to requirements of the regulations.

“The action of the respondents in declining the representations/claim of the petitioners for continuing them in service till the age of 65 years as per the AICTE regulations/Architecture regulations is unsustainable….,” the Bench asserted and directed that the petitioners – assistant professors – should be reinstated they shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.