Page No.# 1/14 GAHC030005042024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/83/2024 Dr. Vanlalruata S/o Remkunga, R/o Tuikhuahtlang, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS The Regional Institute of Paramedical and Nursing Sciences (RIPANS) r/b its Director and Anr. Aizawl, Mizoram 2:The Director Regional Institute of Paramedical and Nursing Science Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalramzauva Sr. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : Mr B Lalramenga (Standing Counsel, RIPANS) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr C Lalramzauva Sr. Adv. Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr B Lalramenga (Standing Counsel, RIPANS) Date on which judgment was reserved : NA Page No.# 2/14 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.04.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the 2. The petitioner has raised a grievance in this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 01.04.2024 by which the respondents had informed the petitioner that, since the superannuation age of tutors without M.Sc Nursing degrees were restricted to 60 years, the petitioner would stand retired on 30.04.2024 on attaining the age of 60 years. A grievance has also been raised against the order dated 24.05.2024 by which the Director of the respondent institute had informed all concerned that the petitioner was retired w.e.f. 30.04.2024 on superannuation. The petitioner has also raised a grievance against the letter dated 19.06.2024, through which he was informed that at the time of his retirement, he was a tutor (non-faculty post), and as per the 22nd Executive Council Meeting held on 03.01.2008 and the 11th Board of Governors Meeting held on 12.12.2023, it was clearly stated that the age of superannuation of non-faculty post is 60 years. It is not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired on 30.04.2024 and thereafter, he had filed this writ petition on 05.08.2024 assailing the aforesaid orders and praying for directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his service by allowing him to continue in his post as a tutor in Nursing Department under the Regional Institute of 2 Paramedical and Nursing Science (RIPANS) with all service benefits w.e.f. 30.04.2024 Page No.# 3/14 till he attains the age of superannuation and 62 years. 3. The facts as revealed in the writ petition are that, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent institute, the petitioner had participated in the selection process and had been appointed to the post of tutor (Senior Demonstrator) in the Scale of Pay as applicable at that point of time with other allowances as admissible under the Rules from time to time with effect from the date of joining duty. The services of the petitioner were officially attached to the Department of Medical Laboratory Technology (MLT) through the order dated 03.09.2013 with immediate effect. At the time of joining his services, the relevant qualifications for recruitment to the post of tutor were either an MBBS Degree or a B.Sc in Nursing or a Graduation with a Post-Graduate Diploma in Public Health/Preventive Medicine/Nutrition/Home Science. The petitioner holds a degree of MBBS, and the same is not in dispute. By a Resolution adopted on the 22nd Executive Council Meeting of the institute held on 31.01.2006, a decision was taken to approve the proposal to enhance the age of superannuation of teaching staff up to 62 years on par with the CHS. The age of superannuation for all other staff was to remain at 60 years. By an office order dated 06.03.2024, the Director of the Institute, in continuation of an earlier office order dated 16.06.2022 and in pursuance of the approval of the Hon’ble HFM in his capacity of President of the Board of Governors, RIPANS, Aizawl, as ratified by the Board of Governors in its 11th Meeting held on 12.12.2023, notified to all concerned that tutors of RIPANS in Nursing Department had been 3 included as ‘Member of Teaching Faculty’ in addition to the posts already identified in terms of Provision 2 (5) of by laws of RIPANS and the age of superannuation has been enhanced to 65 years, which will apply to those having M.Sc in Nursing subject, subject to the condition that these nurses would continue to function as faculty after the age of 60 years. Such tutors, if interested in continuing to function as faculty beyond 60 years of age, were required to submit such willingness to the office in due course of time. 4. On a query raised by the petitioner, the Director of the Institute, by a letter dated Page No.# 4/14 01.04.2024, informed the petitioner that the superannuation age of 65 years has been enhanced only to tutors having M.Sc Nursing subject, subject to the condition that these nurses would continue to function as faculty after the age of 60 years. The Director further informed the petitioner that the superannuation age of tutors without having an M.Sc. Nursing Degree was 60 years, and therefore, the age of the petitioner for superannuation would stand at 60 years as on 30.04.2024. The petitioner thereafter preferred a representation on 22.04.2024. By the office order dated 24.05.2024, all concerned in the Institute were informed that the petitioner stood retired w.e.f. 30.04.2024 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner had thereafter submitted another representation claiming that the age of superannuation with regard to him was required to be 62 years, if not, 65 years. By the Communication dated 19.06.2024, the petitioner was informed by referring to his representation that at the time of his retirement, the post of tutor was a non-faculty post, and in view of the 22nd Executive Council Meeting held on 03.01.2008, and 11th Board of Governors Meeting held on 12.12.2023, the age of superannuation for a non-faculty post was 60 years. It is at that point in time that the petitioner approached this Court, challenging the orders as noted above and praying for appropriate relief of reinstatement and for being allowed to serve the Institute till the date of attaining the age of 62 years. 5. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the service conditions of the persons working in the RIPANS, Aizawl, Mizoram, are governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Institution. Drawing attention of this Court to the contents of Provision 22 of the aforesaid rules and regulations, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that save as otherwise provided, all employees of the Institute, would be offered continuous appointment, on successful completion of provisionary period, up to the date of superannuation, which shall be the date of attaining the age as determined by the Govt. of India from time to time. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has thereafter referred to the Bye Laws of the RIPANS to submit that as per Bye Law 2 (5), “Member of a Teaching Faculty” would Page No.# 5/14 mean Professors, Readers, Assistant Professors, Selection Grade Lecturers, Senior Grade Lecturers and Lecturers, and later, the Tutors were also included in the definition. The learned Senior Counsel has, thereafter, referred to the Advertisement No. 1 of 1997, in response to which the petitioner had been appointed, indicated that the petitioner had applied for the post of Tutor since he had the qualification of MBBS. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that persons with either an MBBS degree or a B.Sc Nursing degree or graduates with a Post-Graduate Diploma in Public Health/Preventive Medicine/Nutrition/Home Science were eligible to apply for the aforesaid post.The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that since the post of tutors was not one of the posts included in the definition of members of the teaching staff, the post of tutor was necessarily understood to be a non-faculty post at the time when it was advertised. The petitioner had participated in the selection and, having successfully qualified in the same, he was appointed to the aforesaid post. 6. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the executive council of the institute, in its meeting held on 03.01.2006, had approved to enhance the superannuation age of teaching faculty up to 62 years on par with the CHS. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the respondents have not disputed the aforesaid position that members of teaching staff were allowed to serve up to 62 years, which was the superannuation age at that relevant point in time, at par with the persons serving in the Central Health Services (CHS). The learned Senior Counsel has referred to Annexure 10 of the writ petition, which is an Order dated 28.09.2022, by which two of the teaching faculty in the institute were allowed to serve till the time they attained the age of 62 years. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that no dispute teaching faculty in the institute would remain in service till attaining the age of 62 years. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the information supplied by the institute to the niece petitioner on 06.06.2024 in reply to an application filed under the Right To Information Act, 2005, whereby it was informed that the 22nd Executive Council meeting held on 03.01.2026 had decided the enhancement of superannuation age of teaching faculty up Page No.# 6/14 to 62 years at par with the CHS. The aforesaid document had also informed that the superannuation age of all other staff stood at 60 years. The information also divulged was that the Board of Governors, in its meeting held on 12.12.2023, had ratified the superannuation age of tutors to 65 years applicable to those having an M.Sc. degree in Nursing, subject to the condition that the nurses would continue to function as faculty after the age of 60 years. 7. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the 11th meeting of the Board of Governors held on 12.12.2023 had ratified two resolutions, first that the tutors of RIPANS in Nursing Department would be included as member of teaching faculty in addition to the post already identified in terms of provision 2(5) of Bye Laws of RIPANS and second, that the age of superannuation had been enhanced to 65 years, which will apply to those having M.Sc. degree in Nursing, subject to the conditions that these nurses would continue to function as faculty after the age of 60 years. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that once the tutors of RIPANS in Nursing department had been included as members of teaching faculty, the age of superannuation of 62 years which was adopted in the 2nd E.C. meeting held on 03.01.2026 enhancing the age of superannuation of teaching faculty up to 62 years at par with the CHS, would also apply to the case of the petitioner. He would be entitled to serve the institute up to 62 years. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the petitioner not having a Master Degree, M.Sc. in Nursing at the time of his appointment or even at a later stage, he may not be entitled to the enhancement of the age of superannuation to 65 years but given the inclusion of the tutors of the RIPANS as members of faculty, he cannot be denied the advantage of having his age of superannuation elevated to 62 years instead of 60 years. 8. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed by this Court by setting aside and quashing the orders dated 01.04.2024, 24.05.2024 and 19.06.2024. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the petitioner would attain the age of 62 years on 30.04.2026. In the event this Court rules that the age of superannuation in relation to tutors in the RIPANS Page No.# 7/14 stood enhanced to 62 years by resolutions adopted by the Board of Governors in its meeting held on 12.12.2023, he would be entitled to serve up to 30.04.2026. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that since the petitioner has been illegally deprived of serving the Institute for the past 2 years, the petitioner would also be entitled to consequential relief in accordance with law. 9. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned Standing Counsel for the RIPANS, has opposed the prayers made by the petitioner in the writ petition by submitting that the petitioner had undoubtedly joined the services as a Tutor in the Institute by having an MBBS degree. It is an admitted position that the petitioner does not possess the qualification of M.Sc Nursing. The learned Standing Counsel for the Institute has submitted that the petitioner has sought to erroneously interpret the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors in its 11th Meeting held on 12.12.2023 to his own advantage. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the Tutor of RIPANS in the Nursing Department have been included as a “Member of the Teaching Faculty” and the age of superannuation has been enhanced to 65 years in respect of only those service holders who had an M.Sc in Nursing subject to the condition that those nurses would continue to function as faculty after the age of 60 years. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that only those Tutors of RIPANS who have the qualification of M.Sc in Nursing would stand to be benefited by the inclusion as Member of Teaching Faculty, and only those members who would come in as members of teaching faculty with the qualification of M.Sc in Nursing would be entitled to the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner did not have the qualification of M.Sc in Nursing and therefore, he would not be a Tutor who could be included in the definition of Member of Teaching Faculty and in the absence of such an inclusion, the age of superannuation of the petitioner, being a non-faculty member of the Institute, would stand at 60 years. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in view of the above, there is no error committed by the Institute in fixing the age of the petitioner for superannuation at 60 years and in releasing the petitioner on retirement on 30.04.2024, Page No.# 8/14 which is admittedly the date on which the petitioner attains the age of 60 years. He has accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the Institute has submitted that the approval granted by the BOG has to be read as a whole to mean that only those Tutors serving in the RIPANS who qualified M.Sc in Nursing could be included as Members of Teaching Faculty. The age of superannuation is to be enhanced to 65 years only for those Tutors. 10. It would be relevant to mention here that the learned Standing Counsel for the Institute had produced the relevant minutes of the meeting of the 11th Board of Governors held on 12.12.2023 as well as the agenda which was placed before the aforesaid Board concerning the inclusion of Tutors of RIPANS as Member of Teaching Faculty and the age of superannuation to the enhanced 65 years which will apply to those having M.Sc in Nursing subject to the condition that the nurses would continue to function as Faculty after the age of 60 years. 11. In reply, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the undisputed facts that Members of Teaching Faculty would be entitled to a superannuation age of 62 years and that the Tutors of the RIPANS had been included in the definition of “Members of Teaching Faculty” by a resolution taken by the Board of Governors, there can be no dispute that the petitioner who was an earlier a Tutor (Non- Faculty) was required to have been included as a “Member of Teaching Faculty” and since the age of superannuation had already been raised to 62 years by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 03.01.2006, the petitioner would be entitled to retire on 30.04.2026 and not on 30.04.2024. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the clause for enhancement of 65 years as the age of superannuation would apply to only those Teaching Faculty who had M.Sc in Nursing and not to other members of the Teaching Faculty who did not have M.Sc in Nursing. Since the petitioner did not have a Master's degree in Nursing, he would be entitled only to the enhanced age of 62 years. 12. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties. I have also gone through the contents of the writ petition, the affidavit-in-opposition and the Page No.# 9/14 affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner and the minutes of the Board of Directors as produced by the learned counsel for the respondents. 13. The fact of the petitioner having participated in a selection process and thereafter being appointed as a Tutor (non-faculty) in the RIPANS remains undisputed. The fact that the age of the Teaching Faculty had been enhanced to 62 years for superannuation from service also remains undisputed. The only dispute that requires the attention of this Court is as to whether the resolutions adopted by the 11th Board of Governors in its meeting held on 12.12.2023 has to be read to be restricted to only those Tutors who carried a Master Degree in Nursing or whether the said resolution would cover all Tutors in RIPANS to be included in the definition of Members of Faculty and the requirement of Master Degree in Nursing would only be applicable only to give an incumbent the benefit of enhancement of this age of superannuation to 65 years, subject to the condition that the incumbent would continue as a member of the faculty after attaining the age of 60 years. The Agenda note for the 11th Meeting of the Board of Governors of RIPANS has been placed before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel for the Institute. Although it is not in the form of an affidavit, since the same is not in controversy, the same is taken on record with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Item No. 3 of the aforesaid Agenda is quoted below: “ITEM 3: INCLUSION OF TUTOR AS TEACHING FACULTY AND ENHANCEMENT OF SUPERANNUATION AGE TO 65 YEARS: The Ministry on 25.04.2022 conveyed the approval of the Hon’ble HFM in his capacity as President of BoG of RIPANS to include Tutors of RIPANS as ‘Members of Teaching faculty’ and the age of superannuation to be enhanced to 65 years which will be applicable to those having M.Sc in Nursing subject to the condition that these nurses would continue to function as faculty after the age of 60 years. Letter received from the Ministry enclosed as Annexure-D. The matter is placed before the BOG for ratification.” Page No.# 10/14 14. The resolution, with regard to the aforesaid Item No. 3, as adopted by the Board of Governors, is also reproduced herein below for easy reference : “ITEM No. 3: INCLUSION OF TUTOR AS TEACHING FACULTY AND ENHANCEMENT OF SUPERANNUATION AGE TO 65 YEARS: The BOG ratified the inclusion of Tutor as teaching faculty and enhancement of superannuation age to 65 years” 15. The letter dated 25.04.2022, referred to in the agenda, is a part of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, which is also quoted below: “File No. U.12012/32/2021-NE F.No.U.12012/32/2021-NE Government of India Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (North East Section) Nirman Bhawan New Delhi-110011 Dated, 25/04/2022. To, The Director RIPANS Aizawl (Mizoram)-796017 Subject: Consideration of Proposal for inclusion of Tutors and Clinical Instructors of College of Nursing as Teaching Faculty-reg. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. A. 12018/1/2022-RIPANS/32 dated 17.03.2022 on the subject mentioned above and to convey the Page No.# 11/14 Approval of the Hon’ble HFM in his capacity of President of Board of Governors, RIPANS, Aizawl to include Tutors of RIPANS as “Member of Teaching Faculty” in addition to the post already identified in terms of provision 2(5) of Bye Laws (Copy enclosed) and the age of superannuation to be enhanced to 65 years which will be applicable to those having M.Sc in Nursing subjected to the condition that these nurses would continue to function after the age of 50 years. 2. You are requested to take necessary action in this regard. 3. The above approval may also kindly be rectified in the next meeting of Board of Governors. 4. Discrepancies, if any, may kindly be brought to the notice of this office. 5. This has the approval of the Competent Authority. Encl. As above. Yours faithfully, Digitally Signed by Raj Kumar Date: 25.04.2022 16:50:16 Under Secretary to the Govt. of India. Tel: 011-23062068” 16. A perusal of the letter dated 25.04.2022, the agenda placed before the Board of Governors during its meeting held on 12.12.2023, and the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors indicates the intention to include tutors of RIPANS as members of the teaching faculty. The petitioner, being a Tutor in the RIPANS, at first glance appears to be a person entitled to be included within the definition of the members of the teaching faculty of the institute. The difficulty arises due to the interpretation sought to Page No.# 12/14 be given by the 13 institute that for inclusion of tutors in RIPANS into the definition of “members of faculty”, it would be necessary for the incumbent to have a master's degree in the nursing subject. 17. This court has noticed that, as per the advertisement annexed to the writ petition, the relevant qualification for persons to be appointed as a tutor in the institute was a graduation degree, be it MBBS or B.Sc in Nursing or a graduation degree with a postgraduate diploma. At the same time, the qualification for appointment as a member of faculty requires a postgraduate degree. The recruitment rules containing the relevant educational qualification required for appointment to different posts in the institute have not been placed before this court. A perusal of the advertisement of No. 1/1997 would indicate that for being considered for the post of Lecturer and Senior Tutors, the minimum educational qualifications required were a master's degree in the particular field. At the same time, as already noted above, the requirement for a tutor was only a graduate degree. 18. The term ‘Tutor’ has not been defined in the Rules, Regulations or Byelaws which had been placed before this Court. The difference in the educational qualifications between posts categorized as members of the faculty and tutors was given in the advertisement as holders of a Master's Degree and Graduates/graduates with a postgraduate diploma. The advertisement also contained a post of Senior Tutor, which required a postgraduate degree. The letter dated 25.04.2022 is intended to include the tutors in the institute within the definition of members of the teaching faculty. When the letter dated 25.04.2022 intended to include tutors in the definition of the members of faculty, there does not appear to be a condition precedent requiring tutors to hold a master's degree in nursing. On a simple appreciation of the language used, the intention of the authority was clearly not to restrict the advantage of being included in the teaching faculty only to those tutors who had a master's degree in nursing science. The requirement of a master's degree would apply only to those persons whose age of superannuation would be enhanced to 65 years of age. Page No.# 13/14 19. The Court does not find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the requirement of having a master's degree in nursing would be mandatory for a tutor to be included as a member of the teaching faculty in terms of the resolution adopted by the Board of the Governors. The same in the opinion of this Court is to be restricted only for the purposes of allowing the incumbent to serve up to the age of 65 years. To the understanding of this Court, all tutors serving in institution were intended to be included as members of the teaching faculty, in addition to the post already defined in terms of provision 2 (5) of the Bye Laws of RIPANS. 20. When the intention is to include all tutors in RIPANS as members of the teaching faculty, the interpretation sought to be given by the institute to restrict the benefit only to those persons who already carry a Master's degree in Nursing science cannot be accepted by this Court. 21. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that with the inclusion of tutors of RIPANS as teaching faculty would apply to the petitioner also, thereby making him to be an entitled to the enhancement of superannuation granted by resolution of the 22nd Executive Meeting held on 03.12.2006. As such, the petitioner would be required to superannuate from service only upon attaining the age of 62 years on 30.04.2026. 22. The orders dated 01.04.2024, 24.05.2024 and 19.06.2024 are set aside and quashed; the petitioner is held entitled to serve the institute up to the age of his attaining superannuation, i.e., on 30.04.2026. 23. As a consequence of setting aside the order of retirement imposed upon him w.e.f. 30.04.2024, the respondents shall pass necessary orders, reinstating the petitioner in service, along with continuity in service till he attains the age of 62 years on 30.04.2026. The petitioner is also held to be entitled to the back wages and salaries for the period from 01.05.2024 to the date of his actual retirement, save and except in the circumstances that the respondents come to a conclusion that the petitioner had other sources of income during the period. In any event, the petitioner shall be entitled to Page No.# 14/14 notional benefits of continuity in service for the period during which he was not allowed to serve. 24. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant