Prof not reinstated, HC tells Chandigarh Adviser to appear in person on next hearing

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 6

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Adviser to Chandigarh Administrator and the Secretary, Department of Technical Education, to remain present in person before the Bench, if orders on reinstatement of a professor “forcibly superannuated” were not complied with and there was no stay in the matter.

The direction by Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan came on a petition alleging contempt of court filed by Dr Sumangal Roy against the Adviser and other respondents. The petitioner alleged violation of the order dated April 8, 2022, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court, while hearing his civil writ petition.

Justice Sangwan’s Bench was told that the Division Bench had directed that the Union Government and other respondents would forthwith take back in service the petitioner, “who was forcibly superannuated”. Allowing the petition, the Bench had also held the petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits.

Since then about two-and-a-half years had lapsed, but the order had not been complied with, the counsel said.

Justice Sangwan asserted the only explanation given by the respondents was that some review application had been filed in the matter and was pending before the Division Bench. But admittedly there was no stay.

Fixing August third week for further hearing, Justice Sangwan asserted: “In the meantime, if there is no stay in the review application and still compliance of the order is not made, respondents Adviser and Secretary, Department of Technical Education, shall remain present in person before this court on the next date of hearing.”

The petitioner, a retired professor of art from a Sector 10 college, had initially filed the petition before the Division Bench seeking the benefit of superannuation at 65 years in view of the Centre’s communication dated March 23, 2007, and all India Council for Technical Education Regulations, 2010, dated January 22, 2010, framed under the UGC Act.

After hearing the contentions, the Division Bench had asserted that the matter stood settled. An SLP filed in the matter was also dismissed as withdrawn on December 15, .2021. As such, the writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be granted “the same benefit as ordered by the coordinate Bench with all consequential benefits”.