1 2025:CGHC:4409-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 46 of 2025 1 - Dr. Ram Kirtan Tiwari S/o Late Shri K.P. Tiwari Aged About 62 Years R/o B/12, Mangla, Abhishek Vihar Phase I, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary To The Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Higher Education, First Floor, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) 2 - The Commissioner Department Of Higher Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Block 3, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) 3 - The Principal Government Mata Shabri New Girls Post Graduate College, Near Patwari Training Center, Seepat Road, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 2 24/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The present writ appeal filed against the impugned order dated 27.11.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 483/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is holding Masters Degree in Library and Information Science from Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur. He did his PHD in the said same subject from the same University in the year 1999. The petitioner was appointed as Librarian on 12.07.1994 and was posted at respondent no. 3 college. As per the recruitment Rules 1990, the service of the petitioner was considered at par with Assistant Professor/Professors etc. and he has also completed Orientation/Refresher along with the Assistant Professors from various colleges across the country. The benefit of two advance increments on account of obtaining PHD Degree with respect from 25.10.1999 was also granted to the petitioner vide order dated 06.11.1999. The service of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 23.09.1998 after successfully completion of his probation period. He was granted senior grade of pay scale from 25.10.1999 by the order dated 08.07.2004 and thereafter, vide order dated 21.04.2005 the selection pay scale was also granted to the petitioner with effect from 10.08.2003. It is also the case of the petitioner that all the benefits of a teaching cadre post i.e. Assistant Professor/Professors was granted to the petitioner time to time by the circulars issued by the UGC on various occasions. 3 4. The petitioner was also recognized/appointed as Research Guide for guiding the scholars of PHD Degree by Dr. C. V. Raman University, Bilaspur, Pandit Sunderlal Sharma (Open) University, Bilaspur, and also by Atal Bihari Vajpayee University, Bilaspur. The Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch Gazetted), Recruitment Rules 2019 also provided that the post of Librarian is a member of teaching cadre post by virtue of entry No. 9 of Schedule 1 of the Rules 2019. The petitioner was being serving in the teaching cadre post of Librarian and the Bachelor of Library and Information Science Course also started performing class room teaching to the students of the said course, from the academic Session 2020-21 and the students of post graduate class of Master of Library and Information Science from 2021- 2022 and even till date he is rendering his duties as a class room teacher teaching the students at Mata Shabri New Girls PG College, Bilaspur. 5. 5. Earlier vide order dated 30.07.2007 issued by the respondent no.1, the age of superannuation of Librarian were enhanced from 60 to 62 years and after enactment of Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam 2012, the superannuation age of class room teachers has been enhanced from 62 to 65 years. In the finance Order No. 23 of 2012 dated 28.04.2012. It is also declared that the teachers employed in class room teaching in library science are entitled to superannuate at the age of 65 years. Despite the superannuation age of 65 years of the librarian, the petitioner has retired at the age of 62 years by the impinged order dated 09.01.2024 issued by the respondent no. 2 with effect from 31.01.2024 and further vide order dated 13.01.2024 the petitioner was directed to handover the charge on or before 31.01.2024. Both these orders dated 09.01.2024 and 13.01.2024 are under challenge in the present writ petition. 4 6. After hearing the parties the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner considering that the UGC has issued a memo on 08.06.1998 whereby the librarian was directed to be treated as academic and non-vocational staff. Another memo dated 27.01.2003 issued by the UGC would also shows that the college librarians are being treated as academic and non-vocational staff. But it is no where stated that the librarians will get similar benefits with regard to promotion, retirement and other benefits with that of the Assistant Professors. Further the State Government had issued a Circular on 28.04.2012 whereby the age of superannuation was enhanced from 62 to 65 years in which it is specifically stated that the benefit of extension of superannuation from 62 to 65 years would not be extended to that staff like librarians and sports teachers and the petitioner has not challenged that circular. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 27.11.2024, which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam 1967, provides only the members of the teaching cadre of the Government College. When the petitioner though who posted as librarian but has engaged in teaching of the students of the Library and Information Science course and he is discharging the duty of Assistant Professor and he also includes the members of teaching cadre of the Government College and he is engaged in class room teaching. He would further submits that the circular dated 28.04.2012 is only a clarificatory in nature and the petitioner was not aggrieved of the said circular, therefore, he is not required to challenge the said circular. He would further submits that from the letter dated 08.06.1998 5 the UGC has directed that the librarian should be treated as academic and non-vocational staff. Further letter dated 27.01.2003 the librarians are directed to be treated as academic non-vocational staff. He would further submits that the respondent cannot deny that the petitioner is engaged in class rom teaching and discharging his duties at Government Mata Shabri New Girls PG College, Bilaspur. Therefore, the services of the petitioner is at par with the Assistant Professor/Professors. He would further submits that the petitioner has also successfully completed his Orientation/Refreshers courses along with the Assistant Professors in various academic staff colleges. The petitioner was appointed as a guide to many students who were pursuing their PHD Degree, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be retired at the age of 65 years, but he has been retired at the age of 62 years ignoring the circulars issued by the State Government as well as UGC. The learned Single Judge should have consider petitioner is also a member of teaching cadre should have been retired at the age of 65 years and ought to have allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the Circular issued by the State Government dated 28.04.2012 is very clear that the age of superannuation of teaching staff only has been extended from 62 to 65 years, it has been clarified in the circular that the benefit could not be extended to other cadre like librarian, sports teachers etc. The petitioner was appointed as a librarian and the required qualification for a librarian was entirely different from a teaching cadre and imparting teaching in class room cannot be equated of the teaching cadre. In absence of any specific notification issued by the UGC, the services of the librarian 6 cannot be treated as the teaching staff or teaching cadre. He would further submits that the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam 2012, would clearly demonstrate that the member of the teaching cadre of a Government College who is engaged only for class room teaching activities and not occupying non-teaching or administrative post shall retire from service at the age of 65 years but it is not the position here, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ appeal as well writ petition. 10. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Librarian and his services were governed by Chhattisgarh Education Services (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules 1990, required qualification for Assistant Professor under the Rules of 1990 his post-graduate degree in relevant subject or in any other subject mentioned by the State Government with the advise of the Commission with at least 55 per cent marks and at degree level the percentage of total marks obtained should not be less than 50 per cent and for the post of Librarian the required qualification was post-graduate degree in Library Science with at least 55 per cent marks at at degree level. The percentage of total marks obtained should not be less than 50 per cent or at least 55 per cent marks in MA/ M.Com/ MSC and at graduate degree for Library Science. The percentage of total marks obtained should not be less than 50 percent. The post of Assistant Professors class room teaching and impart education to students whereas the post of Librarian was for to maintain library. Further the post of Librarian is dying cadre where there are provisions for promotion of Assistant Professors to the post of professor/Deputy Director Higher Education. The post of Assistant Professors 7 belongs to the teaching cadre whereas the post of Librarian belongs to different cadre. The nature of work and their responsibilities of work are also different. By the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam 2012, the Principal Act of 1967 was amended and after sub-rule (1)(d) of Rule 56, Rule (1)(e) has been inserted with effect from 01.04.2012 which is as under: (ii) After sub-rule (1-d) of rule 56, the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely:- "(1-e) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), a member of the teaching cadre of a Government College under Higher Education department, Government Engineering College, Government Polytechnic Institute, Government Dental College and a member of nursing teaching faculty with M.Sc. in Nursing in the State Government nursing teaching institution, who is engaged only in class room teaching activities and not occupying non-teaching or administrative post, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month on which he attains the age of sixty five years: Provided that such member of a teaching cadre who is holding a lien on a teaching post and occupying administrative post, shall have the option of seeking appointment to the teaching post in case he wishes to continue in service-up-to-sixty five years; Provided further that such member of the teaching cadre who retires under this sub-rule, whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty five years. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-rule 8 class room teaching shall mean teaching students in a class room in a course or programme of study in a subject or faculty leading to award of a degree or any other qualification as recognized under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) or the All India Council for Teachnical Education Act, 1987 (52 of 1987), the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 (48 of 1947) or any other law for the time being in force." 11. From perusal of the amendment in the Rules, it is quite vivid that a member of the teaching cadre of a Government College under Higher Educational Department who is engaged only in class room teaching activities and not occupying non-teaching or administrative post shall retire from service after attaining the age of 65 years. The amendment is very clear that the member of teaching cadre who only engaged in class room teaching and not in any administrative post they shall be retired at the age of 65 years but here the post of Librarian is academic and non-vocational staff. 12. Although the pay scale in both posts of Librarian and Assistant Professors is almost the same but it cannot be a ground for enhancement of retirement age for Librarian from 62 to 65 years and only the rules provided. Further the petitioner is recognized as a guide impart education to the PHD students and he successfully Orientation and Refresher courses also cannot be a ground to keep him at par with the Assistant Professors who engaged in class room teaching and retired at the age of 65 years. There is material difference in their substantive post and the petitioner cannot be treated at par with the Assistant Professors. 13. The learned Single Judge after adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case, document annexed with the writ petition by the 9 parties and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the filed that UT, Chandigargh vs Krishan Bhandari, 1996 (11) SCC 348, Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Associations V. State of Kerala 2018 (7) SCC 314, Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs. Bikartan Das and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 996 and also Jitendra Singh Naruka Vs. University of Delhi and others, 2016 SCC Online Del 5893 came into conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and has dismissed the writ petition. After considering the amendment incorporated under the Act 1967 inserting sub-rule (1)(e) of Rule 56 with effect from 01.04.2012, and further considering the initial appointment of the petitioner, the nature of work, the experience their cadre of post also from the aforesaid judgments. We are of the view that the writ appellant could not make out any good ground to interfere in the impugned order. 14. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. 15. From the above discussion, we do not find any good ground to set aside the impugned order, therefore, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.01.29 19:09:28 +0530