Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Karnail Singh vs Chandigarh Administration on 9 April, 2025
1 (OA No. 903/2024)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on : 24.03.2025
Pronounced on: 09.04.2025
OA No. 060/903/2024
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
1. Karnail Singh, aged 59 years, S/o Late Sh. Sita Ram
working as Foreman Instructor, Chandigarh College of
Engineering and Technology (Diploma Wing), Sector-26,
Chandigarh, resident of # E-5, CCET Staff Campus,
Sector-26, Chandigarh-160019. (Group-A)
2. Sarbjit Singh, aged 59 years, S/o Late Sh. Gurnam Singh,
working as Foreman Instructor, Chandigarh College of
Engineering and Technology (Diploma Wing), Sector-
26,Chandigarh, resident of # E-8, CCET Staff Campus,
Sector 26 Chandigarh-160019 (Group-A)
3. Rajender Pal Dhiman, aged 54 years, S/o Late Sh. Baldev
Krishan, working as Foreman Instructor-cum-Officer
Incharge, Workshop Superintendent, Chandigarh College
of Engineering and Technology (Diploma Wing), Sector-
26, Chandigarh, resident of # 3203, 2nd Floor, Sector-
28/D, Chandigarh-160017 (Group-A)
.... Applicants
(BY Advocate: Sh. Barjesh Mittal)
Versus
1. UT Chandigarh Administration through its Advisor to
the Administrator, UT Civil Secretariat Sector-9,
Chandigarh 160009 Email: [email protected].
2. Secretary Technical Education, Chandigarh
Administration, Union Territory Civil Secretariat
Sector-9, Chandigarh 160009 Email: [email protected].
2 (OA No. 903/2024)
3. Director Technical Education, Chandigarh
Administration, Union Territory Civil Secretariat
Sector-9, Chandigarh 160009 Email ID:
[email protected]
4. Principal, Chandigarh College of Engineering &
Technology (Diploma Wing) Sector-26, Chandigarh-
160017. Email ID: [email protected]
5. All India Council for Technical Education, Nelson
Mandela Marg Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070
through its Chairman Email: [email protected].
.................Respondents
(BY Advocate: Sh. Aseem Rai)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985 seeking following relief(s):
(i) That respondents be directed to produce complete record of the case alongwith file notings qua which the case of the applicants for treating them at par with Lecturers and considering them as faculty members is being dealt with by the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) That direction in the nature of mandamus be
issued to respondent UOI/Chandigarh
Administration that keeping in view the duly implemented recommendation of Madan Committee of treating Foreman Instructor at par with Lecturer as well as statutory provisions of RR 1995 (A-2), applicants be allowed to continue in service till the age of 65 years at par with Lecturers governed under AICTE Regulations 2019 in the interest of justice.
(iii) Issue appropriate order/directions restraining respondents from retiring/superannuating the 3 (OA No. 903/2024) applicants at the age of 60 years and allow them to continue in service till they attain the age of 65 years with all service and consequential benefits.
2. The factual matrix of the case at hand is that all the applicants are from the General Category and work as Foreman Instructors at Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology (Diploma Wing), Sector-26, Chandigarh, with one applicant (No. 3) also serving as Officer Incharge. The institution was earlier known as Central Polytechnic College before being renamed.
3. In 1987, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) was set up by the Government of India to plan and coordinate technical education across the country. In 1989, the Ministry of HRD shared recommendations from the Madan Committee for polytechnics in Chandigarh. In 1995, following these recommendations, the Chandigarh Administration restructured the teaching posts. New posts like Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, and Foreman Instructor were created and grouped under one category with the same pay scales and qualifications. In 1999, an advertisement was issued for Foreman Instructor posts, and applicant No. 3 was appointed in 2000 after successfully passing the recruitment process. Subsequent 4 (OA No. 903/2024) administrative orders further aligned the service conditions of Foreman Instructors with those of Lecturers.
4. The applicants submit through this Original Application that although Lecturers now have the benefit of serving until the age of 65 under AICTE/UGC rules, Foreman Instructors are currently set to retire at 60. The applicants argue that, since their roles, qualifications, and pay are the same as those of Lecturers, they too should be allowed to continue working until 65. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in CWP No.20447/2020 titled Dr. Joginder Pal Singh & Others Vs. UOI & Others, decided on 01.03.2021 that the service conditions for faculty should follow AICTE/UGC rules, meaning they should be allowed to work until the age of 65. The applicants also refer to the CAT decision in OA No.2092/2015 titled V. Jeganathan Arulmoni Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another, decided on 16.10.2015, which supports treating Foreman Instructors and Lecturers on the same footing.
5. The applicants therefore seek a judicial remedy to have their service conditions adjusted so that Foreman Instructors are treated as Lecturers and allowed to serve 5 (OA No. 903/2024) until the age of 65, arguing that the current difference is unfair and legally unsustainable.
6. The respondents have rebutted the claim made by the applicants by filing a comprehensive reply. It is stated by the respondents that the applicants, working as Foreman Instructors, seek a directive to extend their retirement age to 65 years, similar to Lecturers at the respondent institute. They base their claim on the 1995 Recruitment Rules, Madan Committee recommendations, AICTE Regulations 2010/2019, and a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment from 2021. Applicant No.1, Karnail Singh, has worked at Chandigarh College of Engineering & Technology (Diploma Wing) since 1993, while Applicant No.2, Sarbjit Singh, joined as a Boiler Incharge. Both were adjusted as Foreman Instructors in 2006 under the Madan Committee's recommendations but were denied further promotions or benefits. However, this adjustment was later challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the Chandigarh Polytechnic Teachers Association. The High Court ruled against them in 2010, directing them to vacate their posts, which were then declared vacant. 6 (OA No. 903/2024)
7. Following this, the applicants filed an appeal (LPA 937/2010), during which the Chandigarh Administration noted that their posts had been abolished. The High Court ordered a status quo, and efforts were made to revive the abolished positions. The applicants also filed another case (CWP No. 21461/2010), challenging the adjustment of Upendra Kumar as a Lecturer, arguing that their situation was similar. However, Upendra Kumar had completed additional qualifications, making his case different. The case remains pending.
8. The respondents further submit that the Government of India, through a 2022 notification, revised service conditions for Chandigarh employees. AICTE regulations, adopted in 2022, apply to Lecturers and academic staff, not Foreman Instructors. The applicants are thus ineligible for an age extension under these regulations. The 1995 Recruitment Rules prescribe different qualifications and pay scales for Foreman Instructors, which the applicants do not meet. Furthermore, the Punjab and Haryana High Court previously ruled that Karnail Singh and Sarbjit Singh were ineligible for the Foreman Instructor post. 7 (OA No. 903/2024)
9. Lastly, in the case of Joginder Pal Singh (supra) where the retirement age was extended to 65, applied only to staff covered by AICTE Regulations 2010/2019. Since Foreman Instructors are not included in these regulations, their retirement age remains 60. Consequently, Karnail Singh, who was to reach this age in March 2025, had been instructed to submit his pension papers.
10. The applicant has filed the rejoinder reiterating the facts as made in the Original Application.
11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
12. It is evident that the applicants, serving as Foreman Instructors, have been placed on par with Lecturers in terms of qualifications and pay scale through past administrative decisions and recommendations, particularly those arising from the Madan Committee Report and the 1995 Recruitment Rules. However, their service conditions remain distinct, as explicitly stated in AICTE Regulations 2010/2019 and the 2022 Notification of the Government of India, which extend the retirement age to 65 years only for Lecturers and other designated faculty members.
8 (OA No. 903/2024)
13. The judicial precedents cited by the applicants, including the case of Dr. Joginder Pal Singh & Others (supra), do not conclusively establish that Foreman Instructors are entitled to the same retirement benefits as Lecturers. In contrast, the respondents have produced substantial material to demonstrate that Foreman Instructors have not been explicitly included in the category of faculty members entitled to an extended retirement age.
14. Furthermore, the past litigations involving some of the applicants, particularly Karnail Singh and Sarbjit Singh, indicate that their status as Foreman Instructors has been the subject of judicial scrutiny, and previous decisions have not granted them parity with Lecturers in service conditions, including retirement benefits.
15. The Tribunal acknowledges the concern of the applicants regarding the alleged disparity in service conditions despite similarities in responsibilities. However, in the absence of explicit statutory recognition placing Foreman Instructors at par with Lecturers for the purpose of retirement age, this Tribunal finds no legal basis to direct the respondents to extend the retirement age of the applicants to 65 years. 9 (OA No. 903/2024)
16. In light of the foregoing discussions, we find no merit in the present Original Application. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order so as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No