High court dismisses writ seeking retirement age at 65 for agricultural university professors

The Telangana High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by faculty members of PJTSAU and PVNRTVU seeking retirement at 65 years. The Court held that enhancement of the retirement age is a policy decision and that G.O.Ms.No.3 does not apply to these universities

By Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: Justice K Sarath of the Telangana High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by professors and associate professors of Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University (PJTSAU) and P V Narsimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University (PVNRTVU) seeking continuation in service up to 65 years of age on a par with the teaching faculty of other State universities.

---

The petitioners challenged their retirement at the age of 60 years and contended that they were entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.3 dated January 28, 2025, under which the State Government enhanced the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years for teaching faculty drawing UGC scales in universities under the administrative control of the Higher Education Department. The petitioners argued that they receive UGC pay scales similar to those of teaching faculty in other State universities and that denying them the enhanced retirement age amounted to discrimination.

They also relied on interim orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in similar cases involving agricultural universities. Opposing the petitions, the State Government contended that the Agricultural and Veterinary Universities are under the administrative control of the Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Departments, respectively, and not under the Higher Education Department. It was further submitted that G.O.Ms.No.3 specifically applies only to universities under the Higher Education Department and that separate clarifications had already been issued excluding the petitioner universities from its ambit.

After examining the rival contentions, Justice K Sarath held that enhancement of the age of superannuation is a policy decision falling exclusively within the domain of the State Government. The Court observed that merely because the petitioners draw UGC scales or perform duties similar to faculty members in other universities, they cannot claim parity in matters relating to retirement age.

Relying on a series of Supreme Court judgments, the Court held that the age of superannuation is governed by statutory rules and service conditions applicable to a particular institution and that courts cannot direct an extension of the retirement age in the absence of a policy decision by the Government.

Holding that the petitioner universities are not under the administrative control of the Higher Education Department and that the Government had specifically clarified that G.O.Ms.No.3 was inapplicable to them, the Court found no merit in the challenge and dismissed all the writ petitions.