Nazir Ahmed Bhat vs Sk Institute Of Medical Sciences And Others

The petitioner is to retire on 31.01.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years as per the Notification issued by respondent No.2 vide

No. SIMS/Per/Noti./2020-2960-68 dated 30.05.2020. The petitioner is working as Tutor in Mader-e-Meharban Institute of Nursing Sciences and

Research, Soura (MMINSR) as per the petition.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is to retire on attaining the age of 62 years and not 60 years as he is on the teaching faculty of the

Institute. The response to the petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is submitted that the petitioner who is working as Tutor is

due to superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years and not 62 years as claimed by the petitioner. The specific case of the respondents is that the

retirement age of 62 years is not applicable to the post of Tutors but Lecturers and above only.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure IV of the writ petition in order to advance the argument that the Tutor falls

within the category of teaching faculty. The learned Senior counsel has also referred to Annexure VII in support of his contention wherein the staff

pattern has been mentioned. Annexure IV to the writ petition is the Government Order No.76-SKIMS of 2013 dated 16.09.2013 wherein the teaching

faculty is categorized whereas Annexure VII refers to ‘Staffing Pattern’ as issued by the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi. Annexure II is

Government Order No.58-SKIMS of 2014 dated 22.08.2014 wherein the age of superannuation of teaching faculty of the Institute is fixed as 62

years.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that as per the ‘Note’ which is annexed with the Staffing Pattern issued by

India Nursing Council the post of Tutor does not fall within the teaching faculty. The staff working as Lecturer or above is considered as teaching

faculty.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ‘Note’ even if it forms part of the staffing pattern the Tutor cannot be excluded

from the category of teaching staff when the same is viewed in the light of other documents which are placed on record.

The short controversy involved in the present petition is, if the petitioner is to retire at the age of 60 in terms of the impugned Notification or he is to

retire at the age of 62, if he is to be considered as part of teaching faculty.

The respondents have taken specific stand that the Tutor does not fall within the teaching staff and that the ‘Note’ forms part and parcel of

the ‘staff pattern’ issued by the Indian Nursing Council. The Court does not find any reason not to rely upon the said ‘Note’ as referred

to by the respondents in their reply and which is also annexed with the response filed to the writ petition. The reliance upon the said ‘Note’

means that the case of the petitioner is not covered within the four corners of the teaching staff. Further, the stand taken by the respondents by way

of response to the writ petition is supported by the affidavit of respondent No.2, Director SKIMS. It is also pleaded by the learned counsel for the

respondents during the course of arguments that on earlier occasions also the Tutor has been superannuated at the age of 60 and not 62. It is not

otherwise pleaded by the petitioner that he has been singled out for superannuation at the age of 60 years while he is discharging his duty as Tutor.

The Court does not find merit in the contention of the petitioner that his age of superannuation is 62 years in terms of Government Order No.58-

SKIMS of 2014 dated 22.08.2014 which speaks of superannuation age of teaching faculty of the Institute at the age of 62 years and that the

Notification challenged is not valid.

In view of the above, this petition is held to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed.