Pant University Teachers Association vs Chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology and Others

V.K. Bist, J.—On 24th August, 2011, we requested the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State to obtain instructions whether he can make a submission to the Court today that in the event the Government decides to extend the age of superannuation of the teachers of the University after accepting the recommendation of the committee, the same will be effective from the date of presentation of the present writ petition. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has taken instructions, when he has been instructed that whether to extend the age of superannuation or not is a policy matter and, accordingly, the State requires time to ponder over the matter. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that he has received no instructions whether, in the event, Government decides to extend the age of superannuation after accepting the recommendation of the committee, the same will be effective from the date of presentation of the present writ petition.

In the circumstances we have been called upon to pass an appropriate interim order to protect the members of the Petitioner as well as the decision of the Government that may be taken in future. In view of the law governing the field decision of UGC, implementation whereof is being sought for in the present writ petition, prima facie, it appears that there is substance in the contention of the Petitioner that the Government should follow the decision of UGC. Further, the Government constituted a committee comprising of people holding high posts in the Government for the purposes of pondering over the matter whether the decision of UGC should or should not be implemented and it appears from the records of the case that the said committee has already made a recommendation for doing so. In the circumstances, unless appropriate protection is given to the members of the Petitioner, the damages, which the members of the Petitioner are likely to suffer, may not be compensated in money, inasmuch as, even if a decision is taken by the Government subsequently to enhance the age of superannuation but the same is not given effect from the date the members of the Petitioner or some of them will retire, such persons will not be entitled to the continuation of their services and the situation, as it appears, has been created only by reason of failure on the part of the Government to decide the policy on the subject expeditiously.

We, accordingly, direct that on the strength of this order, the members of the Petitioner will continue to remain engaged in their services until disposal of the writ petition and, for all practical purposes, they shall be deemed to be continuing in service and should also be deemed to be entitled to all benefits of the service including any decision that may be taken by the Government or by this Court in regard to enhancement of age of superannuation in future. Those, who will be superannuating from and after today, will, however, not be entitled to any remuneration until the Government decides the matter or this Court decides the writ petition.

Let a supplementary counter affidavit be filed within three months from today.

Since the Government is likely to take a decision within three months from today, as it has instructed the learned Chief Standing Counsel, let the matter be listed for final hearing as item No. 1 in the list of 28th November, 2011.

The members of the Petitioner, who shall be retiring today or on any day after today, shall not be entitled to claim nor shall be paid any of their terminal dues until further orders.