Temporary Arrangement Does Not Make a Teacher of the University: Madhya Pradesh High Court”
Madhya Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Sujoy Paul, passed a landmark ruling today clarifying the criteria for determining the retirement age for teaching staff. The decision came in the case of Virendra Kumar Gupta, who petitioned the court to extend his retirement age from 62 to 65, in line with the retirement age for university teachers.
Justice Sujoy Paul observed, “The petitioner was never ‘appointed’ for imparting instruction or conducting research,” effectively dismissing Gupta’s plea. The judge further emphasized that a “temporary and stop-gap arrangement does not bring the petitioner within the ambit of ‘Teacher of the University.’”
Gupta, working as teaching staff at Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidhyalaya, argued that he should be treated equivalent to a university teacher, as he was involved in teaching activities. His legal counsel, Shri Dharmendra Soni, contended that the university’s own memorandum from 2019 supported this claim.
However, the university’s legal counsel, Shri Paritosh Gupta, rebutted the argument stating that Gupta’s substantive post is that of an Assistant Engineer and that he “got all the benefits which are attached to the post of Assistant Engineer.” The court noted that the petitioner’s claim does not stand under the specific definition of “Teachers of the University” as per Section 2(l) of the Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1991.
The judgment concluded that Virendra Kumar Gupta is “entitled to continue up to the age of 62 years only,” dismissing the writ petition.
This ruling sets a precedent that temporary teaching assignments do not qualify one for the retirement benefits accorded to regular university teachers, solidifying the interpretation of relevant legal definitions in such matters.
Date of Decision: 26 October 2023
VISHWAVIDYALAYA SATNA VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
