Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sadhana Bhardwaj vs Technical Education Chandigarh on 18 November, 2025
1 (OA No. 194/2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on :18.11.2025
Pronounced on :16.10.2025
OA No. 194/2025
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA,MEMBER(A)
Mrs. Sadhana Bhardwaj, Aged about 60 years, W/o Sh.
Balraj Krishan, working as Librarian, Chandigarh College
of Engineering and Technology, Diploma Wing, Sector
26, Chandigarh, R/o House No. 1862/2, Sector-22B,
Chandigarh.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. Barjesh Mittal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary to Govt. of
India, Ministry of Education, Department of
Technical Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi.
4. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration through
its Administrator, U.T. Civil Secretariat, Sector 9,
Chandigarh.
5. Secretary, Technical Education, Chandigarh
Administration, Chandigarh.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30'
2 (OA No. 194/2025)
6. Director, Technical Education Department, Union
Territory, Chandigarh, Sector 9, U.T. Secretariat,
Chandigarh.
7. Principal, Chandigarh College of Engineering and
Technology (Diploma), Sector 26, Chandigarh.
8. Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House,
New Delhi through its Secretary.
..............Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Ms. Komal Preet Chauhan for respdts.
No. 1-3
Sh. Arvind Moudgil for respdts. No. 4
to 7
Sh. B.B. Sharma for respdt. No. 8)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking directions to the respondents to allow the applicant to continue in service upto the age of superannuation at 62 years in terms of AICTE Regulations 2010 as amended in 2019 as amended from time to time read with UGC Regulations CAS Scheme, judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in CWP No. 20447 of 2020 titled as Dr. Joginder Pal Singh and Others Vs. UOI and Others decided on 01.03.2021 upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 3 (OA No. 194/2025) in SLP (C) No. 12454-55/2021 decided on 15.12.2021 and judgement of this Tribunal in bunch of OAs leading case being 060/600/2021 titled as Abha Sudarshan and others Vs. UOI and Others decided on 21.03.2023 with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts as enumerated in the Original Application are that Union Territory, Chandigarh was created under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 to be governed by an Administrator under Article 239 of the Constitution. The Government of India, vide Notification No. 3267 dated 01.11.1966 (Annexure A-2), empowered the Administrator to frame Recruitment Rules for Class II-IV posts while retaining powers for Class I posts. Another Notification No. 3268 dated 01.11.1966 (Annexure A-3) equated the service conditions of U.T. employees with those of Central Government employees. Subsequently, Notification dated 13.01.1992 published on 06.02.1992 (Annexure A-4) made Punjab's service conditions applicable to U.T. employees provisionally, subject to modification by the NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 4 (OA No. 194/2025) President. Later, the Government of India restored parity with Central Government service conditions vide Notification dated 29.03.2022 effective from 01.04.2022 (Annexures A-5 and A-
12).
3. Chandigarh Administration's posts have been classified as Central Civil Services. Under the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961, Higher Education falls under the Ministry of Education (formerly MHRD), and all U.T. colleges are centrally funded institutions receiving 100% grants from the Government of India. Librarians in such colleges are governed by UGC/AICTE norms and have been declared as Teachers (Non- Vocational) vide UGC letters dated 08.06.1988 and 14.11.2007 (Annexures A-6 and A-7). UGC circular F.3-1/94(PS)-7 dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure A-6) fixed their superannuation age at 62 years, reaffirmed by Government of India notifications dated 05.03.2010 and 01.03.2019.
4. It is further submitted in the Original Application that MHRD letters dated 23.03.2007 (Annexure NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 5 (OA No. 194/2025) A-7), 31.12.2008 (Annexure A-8), and 12.10.2009 (Annexure A-9) enhanced the superannuation age of teaching positions to 65 years, but retained 62 years for Librarians. The UGC Regulations, 2010 (Annexure A-10), framed under Section 26 of the UGC Act, reiterated the same position. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in CWP No. 20447 of 2020 (judgment dated 01.03.2021, Annexure A-11), upheld the applicability of UGC/AICTE norms for teachers of U.T. Chandigarh. Similarly, this Tribunal in O.A. No. 060/724/2021 (Renu Oberoi v. U.T. Chandigarh) decided on 21.03.2023 and upheld by order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure A-13), directed that Librarians be retired at 62 years.
5. The applicant, possessing the requisite UGC/AICTE qualifications, was appointed as Librarian on 15.04.1999 in Chandigarh College of Engineering & Technology (Diploma Wing) and later upgraded her qualifications with permission of the competent authority. Her post is a Group ‗A' post governed by AICTE norms and carries workload equivalent to teaching faculty NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 6 (OA No. 194/2025) (Annexure A-14). Despite handling extensive responsibilities single-handedly, the post has been wrongly categorized as Group ‗C'. Having no other remedy, the applicant has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal through the present Original Application.
6. The applicant took the following grounds to agitate his matter further:-
(i) Chandigarh Administration is fully funded by the Government of India, and its colleges fall under UGC Regulations governing Institutes of Higher Education. Since UGC has fixed the retirement age of College Librarians at 62 years, denying this benefit to the applicant at 60 years is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory.
(ii) The 13.01.1992 notification adopting Punjab service conditions was a temporary measure under Article 309 and ceased once statutory UGC Regulations came into force. Therefore, it cannot override the UGC norms prescribing retirement at 62 years.
(iii) The issue stands settled by the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr. Joginder Pal Singh and this Hon'ble Tribunal in Renu Oberoi, holding that Librarians in U.T. Chandigarh are governed by UGC Regulations and entitled to continue till 62 years.
(iv) Chandigarh Administration has already granted the benefit of enhanced retirement age to similarly situated Librarians, and denial of the same to the applicant violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the principle of equal treatment of similarly placed employees.
(v) The applicant fulfills all AICTE/UGC qualifications, and since service conditions of U.T. employees now stand aligned with Central Government employees under the 29.03.2022 notification, she is entitled to parity in retirement age and continuation in service up to 62 years.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 7 (OA No. 194/2025) 7 The respondents No. 1 to 3, being proforma respondents, have chosen not to file any written statement.
8. A detailed written statement has been filed by the respondents No. 4 to 7 wherein they have stated that the applicant has suppressed material facts and misled the Tribunal; hence the O.A. deserves dismissal. They submit that the judgments dated 1.3.2021 in CWP No. 20447 of 2020 and 21.3.2023 in OA No. 600 of 2021 and connected cases are not applicable, as those concerned Group A teaching faculty, while the applicant is a Group C Librarian in CCET (Diploma Wing) retiring on 28.2.2025. The post has not yet been upgraded to Group A, and therefore the applicant cannot claim the benefit of the enhanced retirement age of 62 years.
9. It is explained that a proposal for upgradation of the Librarian post from Group C to Group A has been sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Education, vide letter dated 7.2.2025 (Annexure R-3). As per Note 3 of that proposal, the NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 8 (OA No. 194/2025) suitability of the incumbent will be assessed by UPSC for appointment to the upgraded post in Level 9A as per the AICTE Notification dated 1.3.2019. Until such approval, the existing Recruitment Rules prescribe the retirement age of 60 years.
10. The respondents distinguish the applicant's case from that of Ms. Renu Oberoi, a Group A Librarian in PGGC-11, Chandigarh, who was re-employed after the judgment dated 21.3.2023. They assert that since the applicant holds a Group C post, the said judgment does not apply. AICTE (Diploma) Regulations, 2019, were implemented in Chandigarh only after Gazette Notification dated 29.3.2022 and were adopted by CCET through letter dated 6.11.2023 (Annexure R-1). The post continues to be governed by Recruitment Rules dated 18.1.2002 (Annexure R-2).
11. It is further stated that the applicant had earlier filed OA No. 65 of 2013, allowed on 3.2.2014, directing the Chandigarh Administration to forward the amendment of rules to the NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 9 (OA No. 194/2025) Government of India for approval. The execution of that order was revived on 7.1.2020 and is now pending for 28.4.2025. The respondents add that the applicant approached the Tribunal only in February 2025, despite knowing her retirement date and the earlier judgments, and is thus a fence sitter not entitled to relief.
12. The respondent No. 8 i.e. UPSC has filed a reply mainly stating therein that the reliefs sought in the present O.A. can only be considered by the concerned Administrative Department. No specific action or decision of the UPSC has been challenged in this O.A., and therefore, the Commission has been impleaded unnecessarily in the matter.
13. To agitate their matter further, the respondents have relied on the following judgements:-
(i) Punjab and Haryana High Court judgement in CWP No. 11815-2021 (O & M) titled Union Territory and Others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench,. Chandigarh and Others.
(ii) Kerala High Court judgement in WA No. 523 of 2023 titled K.J. Sudhir Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
decided on 27.03.2022.
(iii) J&K High Court judgement titled Dr. M.K. Raina Vs. University of Kashmir, 2001(3) SCT 928. NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 10 (OA No. 194/2025)
(iv) Madras High Court Judgement titled Director General of Foreign Trade Vs. R.B. and Sons, 2004(5) CTC 696.
(v) Punjab and Haryana High Court judgement in CWP No. 20646 of 2011 titled KRM DAV College Nakodar Vs. State of Punjab and another decided on 06.08.2013
14. The applicant has filed a rejoinder wherein the applicant denies the averments in the relevant paragraph of the written statement as wholly incorrect and submits there has been no misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The applicant seeks a direction that she be allowed to continue in service up to the age of 62 years strictly in terms of the AICTE Regulations, 2010 as amended in 2019. The reliance on AICTE Regulations is founded on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jogender Pal Singh decided on 01.03.2021 holding that higher educational and technical institutions governed by AICTE/UGC Regulations must apply AICTE norms so as to permit continuation of teaching and academic staff up to the ages specified in those Regulations. NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 11 (OA No. 194/2025)
15. The respondents' contention that the applicant retired from a Group-C post on 28.02.2025 and therefore the cited judgments which involved Group-A employees are inapplicable is denied as irrelevant and out of context. The applicant submits that the age of retirement is not prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for the post in question and, in any event, the post of Librarian in the respondent CCET Diploma Wing, Sector-26, Chandigarh, is governed by the AICTE Act and Regulations which prescribe 62 years as the retirement age for Librarians. Any attempt to interlink superannuation with local recruitment rules, to the applicant's prejudice, is therefore misleading and contrary to law.
16. The applicant relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K. R. Mann (Annexure A-18), which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 27.03.2009, where enhancement of the Librarian's age to 62 years under AICTE Regulations was sustained. The applicant also relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 12 (OA No. 194/2025) High Court in Dr. S. Kothandaraman v. Pro- Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University and others (WP Nos. 17918 and 17929 of 2021) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Dr. G. R. Bharat Sai Kumar v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 15421/2020 decided on 24.05.2021), which reaffirm the mandatory nature of AICTE Regulations and their primacy over contrary state or local rules where applicable.
17. The legal principle relied upon is further supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute (1995 (4) SCC 104), wherein it was held that where there is conflict between a Central enactment framed under Entry 66 of the Union List and a State enactment framed under the Concurrent or State List, the Parliamentary legislation will prevail. The applicant therefore submits that AICTE Regulations, including the AICTE Regulations 1999, 2010 and 2019 (Annexures A-19 to A-21), are mandatory and NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 13 (OA No. 194/2025) entitle academic staff including Librarians to the enhanced age of superannuation specified therein.
18. The rejoinder further records that OA No. 65/2013 filed earlier was allowed by this Hon'ble Tribunal by order dated 03.02.2014 directing the Chandigarh Administration to forward rule amendment proposals to the Government of India. The execution application MA No. 923/2015 is pending adjudication and is listed on 20.05.2025. The applicant's interim prayer to restrain her relief from service with effect from 28.02.2025 was considered and rejected by this Hon'ble Tribunal on 28.02.2025. The applicant thereafter approached the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing CWP No. 6605/2025 titled Sadhana Bhardwaj v. Union of India and others, which was dismissed by order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure A-24) with the observation that the matter required final adjudication. The applicant submits that the Original Application is bona fide and deserves to be allowed in view of NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 14 (OA No. 194/2025) the binding AICTE Regulations and settled judicial pronouncements.
19. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
20. Having considered the rival submissions, examined the material on record and analysed the judgments cited on both sides, we find that none of the authorities relied upon by the respondents deal with the status of Librarians in centrally funded higher/technical institutions of U.T. Chandigarh, nor do they detract from the binding effect of the regulatory framework under the UGC/AICTE Regulations. The decisions in CWP No. 11815-2021, WA No. 523/2023, Dr. M.K. Raina, DGFT v. R.B. & Sons and KRM DAV College pertain either to State institutions, contractual arrangements, or unrelated statutory fields, and are therefore distinguishable and inapplicable to the present dispute.
21. In contrast, the judgments relied upon by the applicant--particularly Dr. Joginder Pal Singh NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 15 (OA No. 194/2025) v. UOI (P&H High Court, 2021) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Renu Oberoi v.
U.T. Chandigarh (CAT, 2023), Chief Secretary NCT Delhi v. K.R. Mann (Del HC, affirmed by SC), Dr. S. Kothandaraman (Madras HC), Dr. Bharat Sai Kumar (Karnataka HC), and the Constitution Bench ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104 -- unequivocally hold that where academic posts in centrally funded institutions are governed by UGC/AICTE Regulations, such Regulations prevail over conflicting local rules, and the age of superannuation must follow the centrally prescribed norms.
22. It is undisputed that CCET (Diploma Wing) is a centrally funded technical institution; that Librarians are categorised as ―Teachers / Academic Staff (Non-Vocational)‖ under UGC communications; that UGC/AICTE Regulations prescribe 62 years as the age of superannuation for Librarians; and that the Punjab & Haryana High Court and this Tribunal have already applied NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 16 (OA No. 194/2025) the same norms to similarly placed employees in U.T. Chandigarh. The respondents' attempt to deny the benefit solely on the basis that the present Recruitment Rules classify the post as Group-C is untenable, especially when the Administration itself has initiated up-gradation of the post and the classification is admittedly outdated.
23. Administrative delay in amendment of rules or in processing up-gradation proposals cannot defeat a statutory entitlement flowing from the AICTE/UGC framework, nor can it override judicial pronouncements directly governing the field. The applicability of the AICTE/UGC Regulations to Librarians in centrally funded higher/technical institutions of U.T. Chandigarh now stands conclusively settled.
24. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the applicant is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 62 years, in terms of the applicable AICTE/UGC Regulations and the judicial precedents noted herein. The objections raised by NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 17 (OA No. 194/2025) the respondents have no merit and are accordingly rejected.
25. In view of the above discussion, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the applicant to continue in service as Librarian, Chandigarh College of Engineering & Technology (Diploma Wing), Sector-26, Chandigarh, up to the age of 62 years, in accordance with the applicable AICTE/UGC Regulations as interpreted and applied in judicial precedents including Dr. Joginder Pal Singh v. UOI, Renu Oberoi v. U.T. Chandigarh, Chief Secretary, NCT Delhi v. K.R. Mann, Dr. S. Kothandaraman, Dr. Bharat Sai Kumar, and the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute. Her continuation in service shall be treated as valid without break, and she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including pay, allowances, seniority and pensionary benefits arising from such continuation. Any action treating the applicant as superannuated at the age of 60 years shall stand NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30' 18 (OA No. 194/2025) modified in terms of this order. The respondents shall also ensure that the process of upgradation and amendment of Recruitment Rules is completed expeditiously and the applicant's case is forwarded to UPSC wherever required, without insisting on any fresh selection unless mandated by the final approved norms.
26. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:11:19+05'30'