Facts
The applicants are faculty members (Principal, Training and Placement Officer, and I/C HoD) serving in various Polytechnic Colleges under the Skill Development Department of Jammu and Kashmir for 20–25 years
Source reference: p. 2They challenged Government Order No. 110-JK (DSD) of 2023, which rejected their claim to enhance their retirement age from 60 to 65 years
Source reference: p. 2, 5The applicants contended that their service conditions are governed by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Regulations (Diploma) 2019, which prescribe a superannuation age of 65 years
Source reference: p. 3The respondents maintained that the AICTE Regulations 2019 have not been formally adopted by the UT of J&K, and thus the applicants remain governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 (specifically SRO 164 of 2014), which fixes the retirement age at 60 years
Source reference: p. 5, 6Issues
1. Whether the AICTE Regulations (Diploma) 2019, prescribing a retirement age of 65 years, are automatically applicable to the faculty of technical institutions in the UT of J&K without formal state adoption
Source reference: p. 6, 92. Whether the state's service rules (J&K CSR, 1956) are superseded by AICTE Regulations in matters of superannuation for technical staff
Source reference: p. 9Law Applied
Section 23 read with Section 10 of the AICTE Act, 1987, which empowers AICTE to prescribe service conditions
Source reference: p. 3Regulation 2.9 of the AICTE Regulations (Diploma) 2019 regarding the 65-year superannuation age
Source reference: p. 3State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Education & Research Institute (1995), asserting the supremacy of Central laws over State laws in technical education
Source reference: p. 8Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj (2015), which held that Central regulations (like UGC/AICTE) become binding on a State only upon formal adoption
Source reference: p. 10Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala (2023), which classified retirement age as a policy matter within the executive’s domain
Source reference: p. 7, 11Reasoning
The applicants argued that since AICTE regulations are mandatory and the institutions are AICTE-approved, the 65-year retirement age must apply regardless of state adoption
Source reference: p. 9They highlighted that other UTs and States had already extended these benefits
Source reference: p. 4The respondents countered that service conditions for government employees in J&K are strictly regulated by the J&K Civil Service Regulations until a policy decision to adopt AICTE norms is made
Source reference: p. 6, 10They emphasized that the determination of retirement age involves fiscal and administrative considerations best left to the executive
Source reference: p. 11During the proceedings, the applicants modified their prayer, requesting that the respondents be directed to grant them parity with other similarly situated employees who may have received such benefits
Source reference: p. 11Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. without a definitive ruling on the conflict of laws, instead providing a direction for parity
The court ordered the respondents to accord the same benefits to the applicants as granted to "similarly situated others," provided the applicants are legally entitled and there is no legal impediment
Source reference: p. 11, 12This exercise must be completed within eight weeks of receiving the order
Source reference: p. 12The impugned government order was not quashed, but the claim was redirected for fresh administrative consideration based on the principle of equality
Source reference: p. 11, 12Original Court PDF
firdoce ahmed itoo and othersvsSKILL DEVELOPMENT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in