IUST Constituent College Teachers Retire At 60, Not 62; Executive Council Decision Excluding Them From Enhanced Age Binding: J&K&L High Court

Update: 2026-08-19 10:35 GMT

Click the Play button to listen to article

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the retirement of an Associate Professor of a constituent Nursing College at the age of 60 years, holding that the decision of the Executive Council of the Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST) specifically excluding constituent College teachers from the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 62 years is binding in the absence of any challenge to the said decision.

The Court observed that the petitioner cannot claim parity with University teaching faculty when the governing Statutes clearly distinguish between the two cadres.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, dismissing the Transfer Application filed by the petitioner, an Associate Professor in the Alamdar Memorial College of Nursing and Medical Technology, Charar-i-Sharief, Budgam, a constituent Nursing College of the IUST.

A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, while dismissing the petition, observed,

"In the absence of any specific challenge laid to the University Executive Council decision and the consequent University Order dated 11.11.2020, the petitioner was bound by the University Statutes as they existed at the time of her attaining the age of 60 years. As is clarified above, the age of superannuation of the teaching faculty of the constituent Colleges of the University at the time of retirement of the petitioner was 60 years. The University has thus committed no illegality in retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years."

The Court further observed,

"Whether the classification of teachers of constituent Colleges of the University for the purpose of a lower age of retirement vis-à-vis their counterparts working in the University campus is legally permissible or not is not the subject matter of adjudication in this petition. Suffice it to say that the University followed the Statutes and retired the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years."

Background

The petitioner, while serving in the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), Soura, Srinagar, applied for the post of Associate Professor in the Nursing College of IUST pursuant to Advertisement Notice and was selected and appointed to the said post. Her past service rendered at SKIMS was subsequently sanctioned and counted by the Registrar, IUST, for the purposes of service and retiral benefits.

The petitioner's case before the Tribunal was that the University Grants Commission Regulations notified on 18.07.2018 prescribe the age of superannuation of Associate Professors and Professors at 62 years. Being an Associate Professor in IUST, she contended that she was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 62 years, whereas the respondents sought to retire her on attaining the age of 60 years.

She also relied upon Statute 5.18 of the Statutes of IUST, which provides that teachers in the permanent whole-time service of the University shall retire on superannuation on attaining the age of 65 years, subject to the assent of the Chancellor.

The respondents contested the claim, contending that the age of superannuation applicable to University faculty could not be extended to the petitioner as she was serving in a constituent Nursing College governed by a distinct regulatory framework applicable to nursing education institutions, including the norms prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council (INC), under which the age of superannuation was stated to be 60 years.

The respondents further contended that similarly situated faculty members working in constituent Nursing Colleges, including Ms. Zamrooda, Assistant Professor, and Ms. Munima Parveen, Assistant Professor (Nursing), had also been retired on attaining the age of 60 years.

The Tribunal dismissed the Transfer Application, leading to the present petition.

Court's Observation

The Court examined the statutory framework governing the IUST. The IUST was established by the Islamic University of Science and Technology Kashmir Act, 2005, with the first Statutes set out in the Schedule appended with the Act.

The Court noted that Clause 5.4 of Chapter IV of the Statutes, as it originally stood, provided that a Teacher of the University shall retire from the services of the University on attaining the age of 60 years. Similarly, Clause 5.18 reiterated that the teachers in permanent whole-time service shall retire on superannuation on completing the age of 60 years.

The Court observed that the Statutes were later amended to provide the age of superannuation as 65 years, but only with the assent of the Chancellor, which was never granted. The Court further noted that in the exercise of emergency power conferred by Clause 3(5) of the Schedule, the Vice Chancellor took a decision enhancing the age of superannuation of teachers from 60 to 62 years, subject to ratification by the Executive Council.

The Court examined the minutes of the Executive Council meeting held on 4th July 2020. The Court observed,

"While ratifying the action of the Vice Chancellor, the Executive Council, which is the competent authority to take a decision in this regard, excluded the teaching faculty of constituent Colleges of the University from the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 62 years."

The Court noted that the Registrar issued a University Order dated 11.11.2020 to give effect to the Executive Council's decision. However, the Court observed that the University Order did not refer to the specific exclusion of the benefit of age of superannuation in respect of teachers of constituent Colleges. The Court held,

"The University Order dated 11.11.2020 has to be read in the light of the decision of the Executive Council taken on 4th July 2020 in its 10th meeting, which makes it clear beyond any pale of discussion that the age of superannuation of the teaching faculty of the University is 62 years. However, the teaching faculty of the constituent Colleges, like the petitioner, would not be entitled to the benefit of the enhanced age and shall retire on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years."

The Court noted that the Executive Council decision and the University Order were neither the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal nor called in question before the Court. The Court observed,

The Court also addressed the UGC Regulations of 2018 and the INC Guidelines, observing that the Tribunal had elaborately dealt with the position regarding the age of superannuation under these regulations and had come to the conclusion that, in the absence of adoption of these regulations by the University, no benefit could be granted.

The Court observed,

The Court further noted,

"The age of superannuation of the University teachers right from the beginning was 60 years. It was enhanced by the Executive Council to 65 years, but this was made subject to the assent of the Chancellor. The Chancellor never gave the assent. The Vice Chancellor, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Clause 3 (5) of the Schedule of the Act, raised the age of superannuation of all teachers of the University from 60 to 62 years, subject to ratification by the Executive Council."

In view of these observations the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Asmat Parveen v. Islamic University of Science and Technology and Another