Teaching staff designation entitles University employees to superannuation age of 65 years, consistent with prior judicial precedents.

The petitioner was initially appointed on 21.12.2004 as a Training Organizer/Associate Professor/Associate Director.

Following various promotions, he presently serves as Professor, Extension Education, at the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kashipur.

By an order dated 20.09.2013, the University increased the superannuation age for teaching staff from 60 to 65 years.

However, the State Government issued an order on 04.07.2023, stipulating that non-teaching employees would retire at age 60.

Consequently, the University issued an Office Order dated 07.05.2026, intimating that the petitioner would retire on 30.06.2026 upon reaching age 60.

The petitioner challenged this order, asserting his status as teaching staff.

1. Whether the petitioner, holding the post of Professor (Extension Education), is entitled to the extended superannuation age of 65 years applicable to teaching staff.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to parity with similarly situated employees (Dr. Vinod Kumar and others) whom the Court previously recognized as teaching staff.

The Court applied the principle of judicial parity and consistency, specifically relying on its previous judgments in Dr. Vinod Kumar v. Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (WPSB No. 350/2023) and Dr. Anuradha Dutta v. State of Uttarakhand (WPSB No. 333/2023).

These precedents established that employees in similar cadres (e.g., Senior Statistician or Training Associates) who have been historically treated and promoted as teaching staff are entitled to the superannuation age of 65 years as per the University’s 2013 policy.

The Court noted that the petitioner had been consistently treated as teaching staff throughout his career, substantiated by his promotion to the post of Professor.

The University’s counsel admitted that the facts of the petitioner's case were identical to those of Dr. Vinod Kumar and Dr. Yogendra Pal, where the Court had already directed the extension of service to 65 years.

Although the State argued that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Dr. Vinod Kumar judgment was pending before the Supreme Court, the Bench observed that no interim stay had been granted.

Furthermore, the University had already complied with the previous judgments for other similarly situated professors.

Thus, the Court found no legal basis to deny the petitioner the same benefit.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgment in Dr. Vinod Kumar vs. Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. The Office Order dated 07.05.2026 regarding retirement at age 60 was effectively set aside by granting parity with the cited precedents.