Delhi High Court: The present appeal was preferred by the appellant-Jamia Millia Islamia, challenging the judgement dated 10-07-2023 passed by the Single Judge of this Court, whereby the office order dated 04-09-2018 passed by the appellant was quashed. A direction was also issued to the appellant to reinstate the respondent in service, thereby permitting to take his reinstatement at the age of 65 years, with 50% back wages for the period commencing 31-12-2019 till re-instatement, with other consequential benefits. The Division Judge Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Girish Kathpalia, JJ., while dismissing the present appeal, held that the appellant had to comply with the directions given by the Single Judge of this Court.
Background:
In an instant case, the appellant had averred that the respondent was appointed as Research Assistant in the Department of Sociology on 26-08-1986 and was regularised on the same post on 08-02-1989. The respondent was superannuated from the said post after attaining the age of 60 years as on 31-12-1999.
The appellant claimed to be governed by its own Act, Statues, Ordinances and Rules issued from time to time and notified by University Grants Commission (‘UGC’) in consonance with the decisions taken by Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India (‘MHRD’). According to appellant, the respondent, who was appointed on a sanctioned post by UGC and any decision regarding his retirement age could not be in contravention with the guidelines/requirements issued by the UGC in this regard.
By the letter dated 31-12-2008, issued by the MHRD to UGC, it was clarified that there should be only three designations for Teachers in University, namely, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors. Furthermore, MHRD vide its letter dated 31-12-2008 communicated to the Secretary, UGC that vide Letter dated 23-03-2007 the age of superannuation of Teachers was already enhanced to 65 years.
The appellant, in its meeting dated 30-06-2021, received the clarification, regarding the writ petition, from the UGC, “As per UGC Regulation 2018, the age of retirement at 65 years is only for the Teachers. Therefore, the retirement age of 65 years cannot be extended for the post of Research Assistant as it is not equivalent to Teachers”
According to the appellant, the position of the Research Assistant was offered to the respondent subject to terms and conditions specified in the appointment letter dated 20-08-1986, wherein it was mentioned that his appointment was purely temporary, and his service would be governed by the rules, regulations and byelaws of the appellant, as amended from time to time.
Analysis:
The Court after perusal of facts, contentions and the impugned judgement dated 10-07-2023, noted the primary question for consideration as to whether respondent, who was holding post of Research Assistant in appellant-University fall within the category of “Teachers” for the purpose of superannuation at the age of 65 years.
The Court further noted the stand of the appellant was that the respondent was appointed as Research Assistant and his designation and duties performed by him does not in any manner implies to treat him as a ‘Teacher’ and so, he was not entitled to claim benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation. However, it was not disputed that respondent had been performing duties of classroom teaching, course designing, settling question papers, evaluation of answer sheets etc.
In the meeting held on 17-07-2019, while considering the case of respondent the Establishment Committee of the appellant recommended that a research assistant may be treated as 65 years by considering the post of Research Assistant under Supernumerary Teaching post from 01-01-2020 till he attains the age of 65 years or vacates the said post on account of any reason.
The Court further noted that the respondent was possessed with necessary educational qualifications of B.Sc. (Biology), B.Ed., M.A. and thus, fulfils the requisite condition of being appointed as a ‘Teacher.’
The Court was of the opinion that, the Single Judge after considering the provision of Section 2(n) of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988, and Regulation XI and Ordinance 5(V) of the Jamia Millia Islamia Leave Rules, 2021 with regard to sanctioned leaves of respondent, had rightly held that respondent was covered under the definition of ‘Teacher’ and thus, entitled to retire at the age of 65 years.
The Court stated that, the present appeal against the impugned judgement of 10-07-2023 was dismissed with direction to the appellant to comply with the directions mentioned therein within four weeks.
[Jamia Millia Islamia v. Shakeel Ahmad, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4847, decided on 18-07-2024]
*Judgement Authored by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant: Pritish Sabharwal, Standing Counsel; Shweta Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent: Rajat Aneja, Aditya Sharma, and Natasha Aggarwal, Advocates.