Similarly situated university research officers are entitled to the 65-year teaching-staff retirement age.

The petitioner was initially appointed on 12 January 2006 as Senior Research Officer (Irrigation and Drainage Engineering), a post equivalent to Associate Professor. After successive promotions, he was serving as Professor in the Department of Irrigation and Training Engineering, College of Technology, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar.

The petitioner relied on the University’s order dated 20 April 2015, by which the age of superannuation of teaching staff was increased from 60 to 65 years. He contended that he had consistently been treated as teaching staff and had been promoted as Professor on that basis.

However, pursuant to the State Government’s order dated 4 July 2023 stating that employees other than teachers would retire at 60, the University issued an Office Order dated 29 May 2026 informing the petitioner that he would retire on 30 September 2026.

The petitioner challenged the retirement direction. He relied on the Coordinate Bench’s decision in Dr. Vinod Kumar v. Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand & Others, WPSB No. 350 of 2023, decided on 14 March 2024, and the subsequent order in Ramji Maurya v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, WPSB No. 275 of 2024, decided on 10 December 2025, under which similarly placed employees were permitted to continue until attaining 65 years.

The University admitted that those decisions had been complied with and had not been challenged by it. The State disclosed that its challenge to the decision in Dr. Vinod Kumar was pending before the Supreme Court, but there was no interim stay.

Whether the petitioner, having been treated as teaching staff and holding the post of Professor, was entitled to the benefit of a superannuation age of 65 years rather than retirement at 60 years?

Whether the petitioner’s case ought to be decided in accordance with the Coordinate Bench’s judgment in Dr. Vinod Kumar and the consequential order in Ramji Maurya, particularly when those decisions had been implemented and were not stayed?

The Court applied the binding and persuasive effect of the Coordinate Bench’s judgment in Dr. Vinod Kumar v. Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand & Others, decided on 14 March 2024, concerning the entitlement of similarly situated University employees to continue in service up to the age of 65 years.

It also relied on the subsequent order in Ramji Maurya v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, decided on 10 December 2025, which followed the same principle.

The Court treated the absence of any interim stay, together with the University’s compliance with those decisions, as material circumstances warranting consistent treatment of the petitioner.

The applicable service rule was that teaching staff of the University could superannuate at 65 years, whereas employees categorised as non-teaching staff retired at 60 years.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s initial post was equivalent to Associate Professor, that he had received promotions, and that he was presently serving as Professor.

His claim that he had historically been treated as teaching staff was supported by the grant of promotion to the post of Professor and by the treatment accorded to similarly situated employees in Dr. Vinod Kumar and Ramji Maurya.

Since the University admitted compliance with those decisions and the State acknowledged that no interim order had been passed against them, the pendency of the State’s Supreme Court challenge did not justify denying the petitioner identical treatment.

Accordingly, to maintain consistency with the existing judicial and administrative position, the Court directed that the petitioner’s case be governed by the judgment dated 14 March 2024.

The effect was to extend the same treatment to the petitioner as had been granted to the similarly situated employees, including continuation in service with the age of superannuation treated as 65 years, subject to the terms of the earlier judgment.

All pending applications were also disposed of.