The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has held that Centre’s nod is required for taking any decision about the retirement age of faculty of Panjab University (PU) and its constituent colleges.
The bench of justice Anoop Chitkara and justice Ramesh Chander Dimri dismissed the 2022 petition from Iqbal Singh Sandhu, a principal of PU constituent college, Sikhwala, Muktsar, Punjab, who had demanded that he be allowed to continue as principal till the age of 65, with all consequential benefits, according to PU’s decision to adopt and implement the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, 2010, that sought increasing retirement age of teachers to 65 years.
In 2022, he was given re-employment on attaining the age of 60 but Baljinder Kaur was appointed the principal and chief coordinator of the college.
The court noted that the university’s position appears to be that, under Section 2(b) of the Punjab University Act, 1947, together with the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, the UGC regulations make the Central Government the appropriate authority. “Panjab University was initially established as a state university, but after the promulgation of Act No. 31 of 1966, it (PU) became an inter-state body corporate that must function subject to directions issued by the central government from time to time,” the court said adding that PU is not a central university nor a centrally funded institution.
The university has not been incorporated by any union legislation and has a unique status as an inter-state body corporate, according to the statutory provisions of the PU Act of 1947 and the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966.
It added that just because the funding pattern of PU is similar to that of central universities, the same does not change its status from an inter-state body corporate to a centrally funded institution or a central university.
The court added that the scheme regarding revision of pay scales and enhancement of age of superannuation formulated by the UGC cannot be automatically applicable to state-run institutions; and the discretion as to whether the scheme shall be adopted or not lies with the state. Hence, the UGC Regulations 2010 won’t be automatically applicable to PU.
It said that the PU senate adopted the UGC regulations, and sent a proposal to amend PU regulations regarding retirement age from 60 to 65 years in 2011 to the central government. “The statutory framework governing the university ..make it clear that the amendment to the regulations of the university is to be made by the senate, with the sanction of the government, i.e., the central government,” the court pointed out adding that a mere resolution made by the senate in 2011 recommending retirement age of 65 will require the Centre’s sanction.
“The Centre has not taken any decision on the university’s proposal to amend Regulation 17.3, i.e., to increase the retirement age of employees to 65 years,” it said.
“The proposal has been pending since December 26, 2011, without final disposal, and that unexplained and prolonged inaction by the appropriate government on a statutory proposal warrants expeditious consideration,” it said dismissing the plea.
Notably, a petition is pending before the HC seeking enhancement of PU faculty retirement age to 65. Centre is yet to make its view clear on this.