Srinagar, August 11, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has upheld the retirement of an Associate Professor of the Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST) at the age of 60 years, ruling that teaching faculty of the university’s constituent colleges were not entitled to the enhanced retirement age of 62 years applicable to university teachers.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani dismissed a petition filed by Asmat Parveen, an Associate Professor in the Nursing College of IUST, challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s April 9, 2026 judgment and the university’s March 31, 2026 retirement order.
Parveen had initially been serving at Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), Soura, before applying for the post of Associate Professor in the Nursing College of IUST pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 07 of 2015. She was selected and appointed in May 2016 and subsequently relieved by SKIMS to join IUST. Her past service was later counted by IUST for service and retiral benefits.
The petitioner had argued that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018 prescribed a higher age of superannuation for Associate Professors and Professors and that she was entitled to continue beyond 60. She also relied upon the case of another IUST faculty member who, according to her, had been allowed to continue up to 62 years.
She further relied upon Statute 5.18 of the IUST Statutes, contending that the retirement age of permanent whole-time teachers had been enhanced to 65 years subject to the Chancellor’s assent. She argued that nursing faculty should also receive the same benefit as other teaching faculty of the university.
The university, however, maintained that the petitioner belonged to a distinct cadre of nursing faculty serving in a constituent Nursing College, which was governed by a separate regulatory framework applicable to nursing education institutions. It argued that the retirement age for faculty of such colleges was 60 years and that similarly placed nursing faculty had also been retired at that age.
The High Court examined the IUST Act and its statutes and noted that Clause 5.4 of Chapter IV provided that an officer or teacher of the university would retire on attaining the age of 60 years. The court further noted that Clause 5.18 also prescribed 60 years as the age of superannuation for permanent whole-time teachers.
The court observed that the IUST statutes were subsequently amended to provide for a retirement age of 65 years, but the amendment was subject to the assent of the Chancellor, which was never granted.
The Vice Chancellor later exercised emergency powers to enhance the retirement age of university teachers from 60 to 62 years, subject to ratification by the Executive Council. The matter was considered by the Executive Council in its meeting held on July 4, 2020.
The Executive Council ratified the enhancement from 60 to 62 years but specifically decided that the benefit would not apply to teaching faculty of constituent colleges of the university.
The court noted that the Registrar subsequently issued University Order No. 68 (Est.) of 2020 dated November 11, 2020, giving effect to the Executive Council decision. Although the order did not reproduce the exclusion of constituent colleges in its entirety, the court held that it had to be read in light of the Executive Council’s July 4, 2020 decision.
The High Court held that the Executive Council decision made it clear that while the retirement age of university teachers was enhanced from 60 to 62 years, the benefit was expressly denied to teachers working in constituent colleges.
Consequently, the court held that teaching faculty of constituent colleges, including the petitioner, continued to be governed by the retirement age of 60 years.
The court further observed that the Executive Council decision and the consequential university order had not been challenged by the petitioner. In the absence of such a challenge, she remained bound by the statutes applicable to her at the time of her retirement.
The Bench also declined to examine whether the classification between teachers of constituent colleges and those working on the university campus was legally permissible, observing that the issue was not directly under challenge in the petition.
The court concluded that the university had acted in accordance with the applicable statutes in retiring Parveen at the age of 60 and found no illegality in the decision.
“We are left with no option, but to go by the stand of the respondent-University that the petitioner was rightly retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years,” the court as per news agency Kashmir Dot Com, held.
The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal’s judgment and the retirement order issued by IUST. (KDC)
