State governments retain exclusive authority over retirement age; UGC regulations are directory unless specifically adopted.

The applicant, an Associate Professor of Nursing at Alamdar Memorial College of Nursing and Medical Technology (a constituent college of IUST), challenged her retirement at age 60

Originally an employee of SKIMS, she was appointed to IUST in 2016 following Advertisement Notice No. 07 of 2015

She sought a Writ of Mandamus to continue service until age 62 or 65, arguing that University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations and IUST Statutes prescribed higher retirement ages for teaching faculty

The respondents contended that the Nursing College is a constituent unit governed by the Indian Nursing Council (INC) and Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations (J&K CSR), rather than UGC-mandated university teaching departments

They further noted that the applicant was recruited based on INC qualifications (M.Sc. Nursing), not the mandatory Ph.D. required by UGC for Associate Professors

1. Whether the retirement age of 65 years prescribed by UGC Regulations and University Statutes is automatically applicable to faculty of a constituent Nursing College without express state adoption.

2. Whether an employee recruited under the eligibility criteria of a specific regulatory body (INC) can claim retirement benefits prescribed by a different regulatory body (UGC).

The Tribunal applied the principle that fixing the age of retirement is a policy matter within the exclusive domain of the State or Union Territory under Article 309 of the Constitution

It relied on Dr. J. Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2022), which held that UGC Regulations do not override a state’s authority to legislate employment policies like retirement age

It further cited P.J. Dharamaraj v. Church of South India (2022), establishing that state-affiliated institutions are not bound by UGC amendments regarding superannuation without formal state adoption

Additionally, the Tribunal considered SRO 164 of 2014, which mandates retirement at age 60 for J&K Government servants

the Indian Nursing Council (INC) Syllabus, which defines the qualifications for nursing faculty

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s appointment was fundamentally governed by INC norms rather than UGC Regulations.

While UGC Regulations 2010 and 2018 require a mandatory Ph.D. for appointment as an Associate Professor, the applicant was appointed based on an M.Sc. Nursing qualification, which aligns with INC standards

Consequently, the applicant could not "cherry-pick" regulatory benefits by seeking appointment under INC norms but retirement under UGC norms

Regarding the University Statutes, the Tribunal noted that Section 5.18, which suggests a retirement age of 65, is subject to the assent of the Chancellor, which the applicant failed to prove

Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that the J&K Government had not consciously adopted the UGC’s retirement age enhancement; thus, SRO 164 of 2014, fixing the age at 60, remained the binding authority

It ruled that in the absence of a formal adoption of UGC superannuation norms by the UT of Jammu and Kashmir, and given the applicant’s recruitment under INC criteria, the state-prescribed retirement age of 60 years applies

All interim orders were vacated