Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar

Order Date: 11.08.2026

Case Overview

  • The petition (WP(C) No. 969/2026) was filed by Asmat Parveen, Associate Professor in the Nursing College of the Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST), under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging (i) the Central Administrative Tribunal’s judgment dated 09.04.2026 (T.A. No. 161/2024) which dismissed her transfer application, and (ii) the retirement order dated 31.03.2026 that retired her at age 60.
  • Background: Ms. Parveen was employed by Sher‑i‑Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) before being selected for the Associate Professor post at IUST’s Nursing College through Advertisement No. 07 of 2015. She was appointed by Order No. 201/Estt. of 2016 dated 30.05.2016 and relieved from SKIMS on 14.06.2016. Her past service at SKIMS was counted for retiral benefits by the University Registrar on 06.09.2021.
  • Petitioner’s contentions: (a) UGC Regulations (18.07.2018) prescribe a superannuation age of 62 for Associate Professors, later enhanced to 65; (b) Indian Nursing Council (INC) guidelines similarly allow retirement up to 65; (c) Statute 5.18 of IUST statutes provides retirement at 65 for permanent whole‑time teachers; (d) her appointment under the Old Pension Scheme and the Registrar’s order should entitle her to the same service conditions as other university faculty; (e) the retirement at 60 is discriminatory and violates Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 of the Constitution.
  • Respondents’ contentions: The Nursing College is a constituent college governed by a distinct regulatory framework (INC) that sets retirement age at 60; the Executive Council’s 2020 decision to raise the superannuation age to 62 applied only to university‑campus teachers, expressly excluding constituent‑college faculty; the Registrar’s 2021 order merely sanctioned past service for pension purposes and did not alter her cadre or service conditions.
  • Statutory framework: IUST was created under the Islamic University of Science and Technology Kashmir Act, 2005. Clause 5.4 of Chapter IV of the Statutes originally mandated retirement at 60 for all teachers, and Clause 5.18 reiterated the same. Subsequent amendments sought to raise the age to 65, subject to the Chancellor’s assent, which was never obtained. The Vice‑Chancellor, under Clause 3(5) of the Schedule, unilaterally raised the age to 62, pending Executive Council ratification.
  • Executive Council (EC) meeting on 04.07.2020 (10th meeting) ratified the Vice‑Chancellor’s action but resolved that the enhanced age of 62 would not apply to teachers of constituent colleges. University Order No. 68 (Est.) dated 11.11.2020 gave effect to this EC resolution.
  • The Court noted that the EC decision and the 11.11.2020 order were not challenged before the Tribunal and therefore remain binding. Consequently, at the time of Ms. Parveen’s attaining 60 years, the applicable retirement age for faculty of constituent colleges was 60.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the University Statutes and the Executive Council’s 2020 resolution were correctly applied; the petitioner was lawfully retired at age 60.
  • The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the record was ordered to be returned to the respondents.

Topics: Court Judgment, University Employment Law, Retirement Age