Principals’ retirement age flip-flop: Patna HC sets it right, orders all consequential benefits

The move will immediately benefit 20 principals spread across several state universities who fought the legal battle through 15 separate petitions and have an impact on over 300 principals who were made to retire during the five years

In a moral victory and big relief to the college principals who were made to retire suddenly and even from retrospective effect following the 2012 amendment to the PU Act and the Bihar state universities Act, which had deleted the term ‘principal’ in the definition of ‘teacher’ and later restored it in 2017, Patna High Court has ruled that they shall be deemed to have continued on their posts till they attained the age of 65 years and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including pay and emoluments as well as continuity in service.

The HC order now means that the principals who retired between 2012 and 2017 would be deemed to have been in service till they attained the age of 65 years. (HT PHOTO)

“It had been submitted at the Bar that recoveries have been made from certain persons. It is directed that the same be returned forthwith. The compliance of the order should be done within 16 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgement before the Vice-Chancellors and Registrars concerned,” ordered the bench of Justice A Amanullah while hearing the case earlier this month.

The move will immediately benefit 20 principals spread across several state universities who fought the legal battle through 15 separate petitions and have an impact on over 300 principals who were made to retire during the five years.

The removal of college principals from the teaching cadre had created a furore, as the retirement age of teachers was increased to 65 years in 2010, while that of non-teaching staff was left at 62 and all the principals having attained the age of 62 between 2012 and 2017 amendments were compulsorily retired, including some from retrospective effect as they had by then either crossed the age of 62 contrary to the provisions laid down in the 2012 Act and even touched the 65-year mark.

The principals were brought under the teachers’ fold, as was the situation before 2012, again through 2017 amendments, which was to be effective from prospective effect from May 15, 2017. However, several principals completed their age of retirement between 2012 and 2017 and they were not only immediately retired from service, but the government also decided to recover the additional salary paid to them. Raj Bhawan had also sought clarification from all the concerned vice-chancellors about the continuance of principals beyond the age stipulated in the Act.

The HC order now means that the principals who retired between 2012 and 2017 would be deemed to have been in service till they attained the age of 65 years. “The Principal always was a ‘teacher’ l, for if the Principal would not have been a teacher from 2012 to 2017, then without there being any justification or basis either in law or by the pronouncements of the court or under the UGC regulations, the same could not have been re-introduced by the State,” the court observed.

The court observed that “the 2017 Amendment Act included the term ‘principal’ expressly in the definition of ‘teacher’ also shows that without any requirement, the same was done only by way clarification or to remove any confusion/ambiguity”.

The court cited the government’s flip-flop while deciding in favour of aggrieved principals. “The budget, which has been brought on record by the Magadh University for the year 2016-2017, the post of principal has been shown in the sanctioned post of teacher and the budgetary allocation for principal has been made under the head of teachers and in terms thereof, the budget was approved and released in February 2017 by the director, higher education, government of Bihar. Thus, even the State accepted that the principals would also come under the category of ‘teacher’ even after the 2012 Amendment Act. The principals also engaged classes in their colleges according to the 2010 resolution and continued even after the 2012 Amendment Act. So, their position is not disputed,” it added.

A senior official of the education department, who did not want to be quoted, said that it was precisely the reason why education minister Vijay Kumar Choudhary had categorically said at the Patna University foundation day function that the teachers must get their due on time, including promotions, without having to run around. “He told the VCs not to keep a backlog of promotion of teachers and issues concerning them so that they could fully devote themselves to teaching. This will also avoid litigations as ultimately it serves no purpose. Invariably, the state notifications of even UGC regulations are delayed and later department officials try to implement things from retrospective effect, causing unending litigations and loss of precious time and energy. This must stop,” he added.

Bihar state constituent college principal forum Baban Singh said the court verdict had come as a big mental relief to the principals. “I was myself a university professor since 1996 and I was also treated as non-teaching staff. Many others senior to me also had to face the trauma of recovery of salary paid to them. I thank all those who stood by us,” he added.

.