Privately Managed Colleges: Punjab and Haryana High Court rules against extending superannuation age for teachers

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 12

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a teacher, working in a government-aided privately managed colleges, can’t claim extension of superannuation age from 60 to 65 years.

The ruling by the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma came on a petition by an associate professor in a government-aided privately managed college affiliated to Panjab University. She was seeking directions to the Union of India and other respondents to raise superannuation age to 65 in terms of the UGC Regulations already adopted and implemented by the varsity.

The Bench was assisted by Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain, UT Senior Standing Counsel Anil Mehta with Additional Standing Counsel Aman Bahri and counsel Gagneshwar Walia for a respondent.

The Bench was, among other things, told that the service conditions, including superannuation age, of the teaching faculty in privately managed aided colleges were governed by the relevant rules of Punjab government specifically notified and adopted by the Government of India and made applicable vide notification dated January 15, 1992, regarding UT employees.

It was later extended to the employees of the privately managed aided colleges of Chandigarh. As such, the members of teaching faculty would retire at 60.

But the Punjab Rules of 1992 became abrogated and Central Rules came into force vis-a-vis the service conditions, including retirement age of UT employees, vide notification dated March 29, 2022. The petitioner’s argument was that the superannuation age of teaching faculty in UT government colleges was consequently governed by the Central Service Rules from April 1, 2022. As such, the teachers in UT government colleges would superannuate at 65.

It was added that the notification was restricted only to the service conditions of teaching faculty in UT government colleges. As the Punjab Rules stood abrogated vide the notification, there were no rules governing the service conditions of teachers in the government aided privately managed colleges in Chandigarh. Resultantly, the petitioner was entitled to parity of service conditions with her counterparts in UT government colleges.

The Bench asserted the petitioner’s counsel made a mis-founded submission that functional, applicable, service conditions, especially relating to superannuation age, were absent after the abrogation of the Punjab Rules. The applicability of the notification was singularly restricted to the UT employees, or the teaching faculty in government colleges within UT. Naturally, the notification could not ipso facto be made applicable to the teaching faculty in privately managed aided colleges within UT.

The Bench added government-operated colleges funded through budgetary allocations differed significantly from privately-run colleges that received grants-in-aid from the Union of India. This distinction naturally led to a lack of an absolute entitlement for the teaching faculty in privately managed colleges to demand equal treatment with their counterparts in government-managed colleges, despite similar job functions.