Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Sri Narayan Ojha vs The Union Of India & Ors on 19 July, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1 19.07.201812
ddas WP 10953 (W) of 2017
Dr. Sri Narayan Ojha
Vs.
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Pradip Roy
Ms. Shraboni Sarkar
... ...For the petitioner
Mr. Subrata Roy Karmakar
Mr. Sanjoy Bhattacharya
... ... For the Visva Bharati
Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta
... ...For the UGC
Petitioner by this writ petition has sought cancellation of letter dated 15th October, 2015 informing him he was to retire from Visva Bharati service with effect from 30th September, 2016 on superannuation. Petitioner had earlier filed a supplementary affidavit by which he sought rectification of date of letter impugned to be as above. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was appointed as Senior System Programmer, Visva Bharati but as per qualification and experience for various levels in computer centre prescribed by University Grants Commission (UGC). The post was in Reader's scale. By letters dated 19th September, 2016 and 27th September, 2016 Visva Bharati respectively addressed UGC and Ministry of Human Resource and Development, 2 Government of India saying, inter alia, in pursuance to UGC letter of 1985 non-vacation academic status was granted to the vacant post of Senior System Programmer and the post was redesignated as Senior System Programmer cum Reader by Academic and Executive councils of the University in March, 1997 and September, 1997 respectively. View of the University was conveyed was, academic status granted to present incumbent, petitioner, cannot be withdrawn at this juncture as it will amount to violation of service condition.
Mr. Roy submits, after having put in the time required, his client achieved pay band of associate professor. Relying on statute 20K of the University he submits, his client's retirement age should be 65 years. He is yet to achieve that age. He seeks interference.
Mr. Roy Karmakar, learned advocate appears on behalf of the University and submits, present position of his client is that the post is not an academic post. He refers to impugned letter and points out, it was accordingly addressed. Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appears on behalf of UGC and refers to his client's affidavit from which he points out, Central Government had not agreed to what is being claimed by petitioner. Matter was left to be decided by his client on proposal made by Visva Bharati. Visva Bharati has made no such proposal. So far as his client is concerned the post is not an academic post.
This Court notices qualifications prescribed for the post by UGC, service conditions of petitioner as promised by the University, 3 the University's views expressed in said two letters - the letter addressed to UGC fulfilling requirements of a proposal made. This Court also notices letter dated 29th November, 2016 of Government of India (M.H.R.D) in which, inter alia, following was said :-
"The matter of age of superannuation in respect of Dr. S. N. Ojha may be considered by the University in terms of the extant Act, Statutes, Ordinances and the relevant rules/regulations of the University relating to the age of retirement of the post held by Dr. S. N. Ojha and the final decision in the matter may be taken after approval of the UGC."
The statute provides for a longer period of service to professors, associate professors and assistant professor of the University. It is clear the University appointed petitioner in the post which it held out was an academic post. This was not its ipsi dixit as the University relied on prescription of UGC. UGC must take a decision in the matter and inform the same to all concerned within a period of six weeks from date of communication of this order.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)