# Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Orjs

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 662
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-21
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 19750 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-anil-kumar-katiyar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-orjs-50943
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Law
-
U.P.
St.
Agricultural
Universities Act, 1958 - Section 2(k) -
Definition
of
Teacher
and
Prospective
Application - The amended definition of
"Teacher" under Section 2(k) of the U.P. St.
Agricultural Universities Act, 1958, introduced by
U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019, operates prospectively,
not affecting those already recognized as
teachers under the unamended definition, which
included
persons
involved
in
imparting
instructions, conducting research, or extension
programmes. (Paras 47, 48, 51)
1 All. Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663
Status of Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) Staff
- Employees of KVK, appointed as Scientists,
Subject
Matter
Specialists,
or
Training
Associates, are entitled to the same privileges,
amenities,
and
facilities
as
corresponding
teaching faculty of the university, as per
Clause
7(viii)
of
the
Memorandum
of
Understanding (MOU) between the Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and
the university, including superannuation at 62
years. (Paras 15, 21, 52, 60)

Application of UGC Career Advancement
Scheme (CAS) - KVK staff, appointed prior
to 29.03.2011 as Subject Matter Specialists or
Senior Scientists, are eligible for the UGC CAS
and associated pay scales, as confirmed by
ICAR's letter dated 08.08.2022, aligning their
service conditions with university teaching
faculty. (Paras 22, 53)

St. Government's Overreach - The St.
Government's
orders
dated
14.06.2022,
29.07.2022,
and
10.11.2022,
directing
retirement of KVK staff at 60 years, were
beyond its competence, as it is neither a party
to the MOU nor funds KVK operations,
rendering such orders arbitrary and an
intrusion into the university's autonomy.
(Paras 55, 56, 58)

University's Non-Application of Mind -
The university's compliance with the St.
Government's orders to retire KVK staff at 60
years, despite its earlier stand supporting a
62-year superannuation age, reflects a lack of
independent application of mind, rendering
the
impugned
orders
legally
unsustainabl(Paras 46, 57)
ICAR's Role and MOU Interpretation - The
ICAR, as the funding authority, stipulates that
KVK staff are under the administrative control
of the host university, with service conditions
governed
by
university
rules,
and
no
resolution or consultation with the university
supports the St.'s interpretation of the MOU to
retire KVK staff at 60 years. (Paras 49, 54)
G. Outcome of Writ Petitions - The impugned
orders retiring petitioners at 60 years were
quashed, restoring their status in KVK until the
age of 62 years, with entitlement to all service
benefits,
including
arrears
of
salary,
as
applicable to corresponding university faculty
positions. (Paras 61-63)

Writ Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,869 of 94,427. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39869 for what follows._

662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
postgraduate classes while he discharged
duties as Additional Professor working on
the said post, I do not find any good ground
to take view contrary to what has been
answered by the Government in reply to the
query made by the Commission. It is all a
question that experience as a Professor,
which is to be reckoned with for the post in
question for which selection has been
undertaken by the Commission, in my
considered view the experience as an
Additional Professor or as a Professor
would count to experience of teaching
postgraduate classes and the petitioner
having requisite teaching experience as
Professor and Additional Professor would,
therefore, be entitled to the post. The
question formulated thus stands answered
in favour of Dr. Sheo Kumar.

30. Besides the above, I find that the
Commission
cancelled
the
order
of
appointment/selection of the petitioner by
means of a very cryptic order passed on
10.08.2022 though it records that the
petitioner did not possess the requisite
qualifications but it failed to deliberate
upon the various guidelines prescribed by
the MCI, opinion expressed by Board of
Governors dated 13.12.2018 and the
decision taken by the State Government
vide
letters
dated
10.01.2022
and
30.05.2022 clarifying the experience. It is
interesting to notice that these two
letters/notifications wherein reply to the
queries were made by the competent
authority but the Commission miserably
failed to notice them. The order, therefore,
cannot be sustained also for the reason that
it did not contain any good ground to
cancel the provisional selection.

31. In view of the above, Writ-A
No.17887 of 2022 succeeds and is allowed.
The order impugned dated 10.08.2022 is
hereby
quashed.
Accordingly,
Writ-A
No.4236 of 2022 stands disposed of. The
Commission
is
directed
to
make
recommendations
in
favour
of
the
petitioner Dr. Sheo Kumar for appointment
on the post of Principal provided the other
requisite formalities as may be required in
law are completed by the petitioner. In the
circumstances, writ petition filed by Dr.
Jitendra Singh Kushwaha being Writ-A
No.11798 of 2021 is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 662
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 19750 of 2022
connected with
Writ-A Nos. 21223 of 2022, 21543 of 2022,
21585 of 2022 & 2932 of 2023

Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Orjs. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S. Shekhar, Sri Mayank Singh, Sri V.K. Singh
(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pranab Kumar Ganguli

Civil
Law
-
U.P.
St.
Agricultural
Universities Act, 1958 - Section 2(k) -
Definition
of
Teacher
and
Prospective
Application - The amended definition of
"Teacher" under Section 2(k) of the U.P. St.
Agricultural Universities Act, 1958, introduced by
U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019, operates prospectively,
not affecting those already recognized as
teachers under the unamended definition, which
included
persons
involved
in
imparting
instructions, conducting research, or extension
programmes. (Paras 47, 48, 51)
1 All. Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663
Status of Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) Staff
- Employees of KVK, appointed as Scientists,
Subject
Matter
Specialists,
or
Training
Associates, are entitled to the same privileges,
amenities,
and
facilities
as
corresponding
teaching faculty of the university, as per
Clause
7(viii)
of
the
Memorandum
of
Understanding (MOU) between the Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and
the university, including superannuation at 62
years. (Paras 15, 21, 52, 60)

Application of UGC Career Advancement
Scheme (CAS) - KVK staff, appointed prior
to 29.03.2011 as Subject Matter Specialists or
Senior Scientists, are eligible for the UGC CAS
and associated pay scales, as confirmed by
ICAR's letter dated 08.08.2022, aligning their
service conditions with university teaching
faculty. (Paras 22, 53)

St. Government's Overreach - The St.
Government's
orders
dated
14.06.2022,
29.07.2022,
and
10.11.2022,
directing
retirement of KVK staff at 60 years, were
beyond its competence, as it is neither a party
to the MOU nor funds KVK operations,
rendering such orders arbitrary and an
intrusion into the university's autonomy.
(Paras 55, 56, 58)

University's Non-Application of Mind -
The university's compliance with the St.
Government's orders to retire KVK staff at 60
years, despite its earlier stand supporting a
62-year superannuation age, reflects a lack of
independent application of mind, rendering
the
impugned
orders
legally
unsustainabl(Paras 46, 57)
ICAR's Role and MOU Interpretation - The
ICAR, as the funding authority, stipulates that
KVK staff are under the administrative control
of the host university, with service conditions
governed
by
university
rules,
and
no
resolution or consultation with the university
supports the St.'s interpretation of the MOU to
retire KVK staff at 60 years. (Paras 49, 54)
G. Outcome of Writ Petitions - The impugned
orders retiring petitioners at 60 years were
quashed, restoring their status in KVK until the
age of 62 years, with entitlement to all service
benefits,
including
arrears
of
salary,
as
applicable to corresponding university faculty
positions. (Paras 61-63)

Writ Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey Vs St. of U.P.,
Writ-A No. 7847 of 2022, decided on 17.05.2023

2. Section 6, U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904
(Paras 48)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mayank
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in
Writ - A No. 19750 of 2022, Sri Ajeet
Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of
Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner in Writ - A No. 2932 of 2023, Sri
Atul Tej Kulshrestha, learned Advocate
appearing for the respective petitioners in
Writ - A No. 21543 of 2022 and Writ - A
No. 21585 of 2022, Sri Manoj Kumar
singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in
Writ - A No. 21223 of 2022, Sri P.K.
Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing for
the University namely Sardar Vallabh Bhai
Patel
University
of
Agriculture
and
Technology, Meerut, Sri Rakesh Kumar,
learned Advocate appearing for Chandra
Shekhar Azad University in the respective
petitions,
Sri
Ashok
Mehta,
learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Chief
Standing Counsel and Sri P.K. Srivastava,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State respondents.

2. All these petitions since raise
common question of law, therefore, have
been heard together and are being decided
by this common judgment and writ petition
of Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar and another
being Writ - A No.- 19750 of 2022 is taken
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to be the leading petition and the
documents of this petition have been
referred to for reference purposes.

3. Petitioner No.- 1, namely, Dr. Anil
Kumar Katiyar (Writ - A No. - 19750 of
2022) was appointed on 14th January, 1995
as Assistant Professor (Soil Science) and
was given posting at Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Badaun whereas petitioner No.- 2, namely,
Madhvendra Singh was appointed as
Assistant
Professor
Agricultural
Engineering and was posted at Krishi
Vigyan
Kendra,
Ghaziabad.
For
the
purposes of reference the appointment
order of Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar is
reproduced hereunder:

"G.B. Pant University of Agriculture
& Technology

Pant Nagar-263145 Distt. Nainital,U.P.

Personnel Management Section

No.PMS(A)III/SCR/8200
 Date: Jan. 14, 1995

Sri/ Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar,

C/O Sri M.C. Sachan

11, New Market, Pantnagar

With reference to your application
dated 25.7.94 and on the basis of the
approval by the Board of Management of
this University, the Vice-Chancellor has
been pleased to appoint you on the post of
Training Associate/ S.M.S./ Asstt. Professor
(Soil Science) temporarily in the University
in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. You will
be allowed a basic pay of Rs.2200/- Rupees
Two thousand two hundred only), per
mensum in the above scale plus dearness
allowance as per rules of the University
with effect from the date of joining.

2. The terms and conditions of your
services shall be as mentioned in the form
of contract already executed by you.

3. Residential accommodation, as
available will be provided to you on rent.

4. The University will not pay any
travelling allowance for taking up the
above appointment.

5. You will have to abide by regulation
on code of Conduct for teachers of this
University, (a copy of the same is
enclosed).

6. You will have also to abide by the
Act, Statutes and Regulations of the
University as framed or modified from time
to time.

7. Please inform the Chief Personnel
Officer immediately if the appointment is
acceptable to you. If so you should report
for duty to the Officer Incharge, K.V.K.
Badaun of this University latest by
13.2.1995.

(M.S. Gangwar)

Chief Personnel Officer

for Vice-Chancellor"

4. Both the petitioners completed their
Ph.D. degree from the University and were
promoted on 12th April, 2017 as Professor,
KVK. The promotion order of petitioner
Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar as a Professor
dated 12th April, 2017 is reproduced
hereunder:

"Personnel Section

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of
Agriculture & Technology,

Meerut - 250110

No: SVP/PS2017/5488

Date: 12.04.2017

Order

Consequent upon the promotion from
Programme
Coordinator/Associate
Director Extension to Professor (KVK)
under Career Advancement Scheme as
promulgated by the U.P. Govt. vide G.O.
No. 290/ 12-8-2002-400(43)/ 96ए date
07.02.2000,
2631/
67-
कृवशअ-10-
1 All. Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
665
1500(16)/09 date 21.09.2010 and G.O. No.
2052/67-कृवशअ-14-1500(16)/09
dated
30.09.2014 applicable to the teachers of
Agricultural Universities in U.P. (Krishi
Vigyan Kendra) and there upon the decision
of the Board of Management Dated
20.03.2017,
Vice-Chancellor
has
been
pleased to promote Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar,
Associate
Director
Extension,
KVK,
Muzaffarnagar pay band Rs. 37400-67000
AGP Rs. 9000/- to the post of Professor (Soil
Science), KVK in the pay band Rs. 3740067000 AGP Rs. 10000/- subject to the
conditions as mentioned below:

1. That the aforesaid Selection Grade
shall be governed by the conditions as laid
down in the G.O. No. 2631/67-कृवशअ-101500(16)/09 date 21.09.2010 and G.O. No.
2052/67-कृवशअ-14-1500(16)/09
dated
30.09.2014 in respect of the Teacher's
Promotion Policy which interalia lays
down as follows:

(i) This promotion will be effective
from the date it is due to him i.e.
01.07.2010 as per resolution of the Board
of Management dated 20.03.2017.

(ii) This promotion is purely personal to
the incumbent and the person concerned will
continue
to
discharge
his
teaching/research/extension
responsibilities
as hitherto. There will be no reduction in
workload nor any additional monetary
benefit or any privilege due to this promotion.

(iii) That this promotion would, at no
time, cause any creation of any additional
post and as such, whenever the incumbent
leaves the University services, the post held
by him prior to the grant of aforesaid
selection scale shall only be filled.

2. The other terms and conditions will
remain the same as provided in the Act and
Statutes, as well as the agreement bond
already filled by him.

Registrar

for Vice-Chancellor"

5. These above documents have been
annexed with specific averments made in
paragraph 7 and 18 of the writ petition and
in reply to the same, the university vide
paragraphs 7 & 9 of the counter affidavit
has only stated that these are matters of
record and need no comments. In the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State
and sworn by Sri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi,
Special Secretary, Agriculture Education
and Research, U.P., Lucknow, there is no
denial to these documents as it has been
stated vide paragraphs 8 and 10 of the said
counter affidavit these are matters of record
and hence need no comments.

6. Similarly, petitioner, namely, Dr.
Shripal (Writ - A No.- 21223 of 2022) was
appointed as SMS/ Assistant Professor on
9th June, 2008, Planned Breeding and
given posting at KVK, Noorpur. He was
also subsequently benefited under the CAS.

7. Petitioner, namely, Dr. Satish
Kumar (Writ - A No.- 21543 of 2022) was
appointed on 20th December, 1995 as
Training Associate (Extension) at Krishi
Vigyan Kendra, Jalalpur. He was also
promoted as Associate Professor/ Training
Associate under the order of ViceChancellor dated 11th January, 2008.

8. Petitioner, namely, Dr. Sheesh Pal
Singh (Writ - A No.- 21585 of 2022) was
appointed as Training Associate/ Assistant
Professor under the order dated 8th
December, 2003 and was given posting at
KVK, Nagina. He was also given benefit
under the CAS vide order dated 7th
February, 2011 and further given benefit on
12th April, 2017 in the pay band of
Rs.15500-39100
to
with
A.G.P.
of
Rs.8,000/-.

9. Petitioner, namely, Om Prakash
Verma (Writ - A No.- 2932 of 2023) was
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appointed on 10th November, 1991 as
Subject Matter Specialist, Dairy (ND)
Scheme and was given posting at Kanpur.
He was further conferred with the benefit
under CAS on 29th July, 2015. These facts
are also not disputed either by the
university or by the State Government in
their respective counter affidavits and have
been replied to just as a matter or record.

10. Since the State of U.P. has already
enacted the Uttar Pradesh State Agricultural
Universities Act, 1958 and all the agricultural
universities are governed under the said State
Act,
the
State
Government
issued
a
Government order dated 14th November,
2014 applying first Statute of the Chandra
Shekhar Azad Agricultural University to
Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel University of
Agriculture and Technology, Meerut and
other such agricultural universities run in the
State of Uttar Pradesh.

11. The selection and appointment of
the petitioners on their respective posts has
been made upon creation of such posts by
the Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(hereinafter referred to as 'ICAR') as ICAR
provides budget to run the Krishi Vigyan
Kendra
attached
to
the
respective
agricultural universities. The said Council
has also reached to a Memorandum of
Understanding (hereinafter referred to as
'MOU') with the respective universities on
5th April, 2020 jointly signed by the
Officer on behalf of the ICAR as a first
party and officer on special duty of the
respondent University as a second party.
The MOU states the object with which it
has been signed and sub-clause (I), (II) and
(III) of clause 2 being relevant are
reproduced hereunder:

"2.(I).
To
plan,
undertake,
aid,
promote
and
co-ordinate
education,
research and its application in agriculture,
agroforestry, animal husbandry, fisheries,
home science and allied sciences.

(II). To act as a clearing house of
research and general information relating
to agriculture, animal husbandry, home
science, allied sciences and fisheries
through its publications and information
system, and by instituting and promoting
transfer of technology programmes.

(III). To provide, undertake and
promote consultancy services in the fields
of
education,
research,
training
and
dissemination of information in agriculture,
agroforestry, animal husbandry fisheries,
home science and allied sciences."

12. The mandate of the University
under the MOU is as per sub-clause (III) of
clause 4 'Coordinating extension activities
in the field and undertaking the field and
extension programmes for Uttar Pradesh'.
Clause 5 of the MOU prescribes for two
kinds of post, namely, Scientists/ Subject
Matter Specialist (SMS) and Technical
Staff and provides recurring and nonrecurring cost on the pattern of the
assistance applicable to the Krishi Vigyan
Kendra (hereinafter referred to as 'KVK').
Sub-clauses (i) and (iii) of clause 5 are
relevant and are reproduced hereunder:

"5(i). Salary assistance in respect of
component scientists and technical staff in
different
disciplines
(Agricultural
Extension, Agronomy, Plant Breeding,
Livestock Production, Horticulture, Home
Science,
Agricultural
Engineering,
Fisheries, Agroforestry, Soil Science and
Plant Protection) based on the local needs
and requirements for taking up various
activities of the KVK as per mandate;

(iii) The cost of approved recurring
and non-recurring items based on the
pattern of assistance applicable to KVKs as
1 All. Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
667
decided by the competent authority from
time to time."

13. Sub-clauses (i) and (iii) of clause
6 are equally relevant here and are
reproduced hereunder:

"6(i). At least Twenty hectares of good
quality cultivable land at suitable location,
fish
ponds
or
other
required
field/
laboratory/
classrooms
facilities
for
imparting
instructions
through
work-
experience/ learning by doing;

(iii)
Required
Staff,
Building,
equipments and animals presently available
with
the
Grantee
(Institution)
and
specifically identified by Council for
transfer to KVK as agreed for joint use
from time to time."

14. Thus, according to the above
MOU, KVK provides for a centre at a
suitable location for all kind of research
activities
based
on
cultivation
and
laboratory and the class room facility also
for imparting instructions and take clauses
and further the University staff may also be
transferred to the centres if required as
agreed by the University.

15. Clause 7 of the MOU that
provides for grants to be made to the
grantee by the Council which includes
salary of the staff of the KVK and to
provide designation and duties to the staff
in accordance with law and provisions
made under the scheme and that KVK staff
will not be assigned any other duty except
at the centre but the KVK staff will be
treated at par with the staff of University
for the purposes of privileges, amenities
and
facilities
permissible
to
the
corresponding
staff
of
the
grantee
University, meaning thereby all service
benefit of the corresponding positions in
the University will be offered to the
working staff of the KVK. Relevant subclauses (i), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of
clause
7
of
MOU
are
reproduced
hereunder:

"7(i). Open a separate Bank account
in the name of KVK where entire grants-inaid received from the Council would be
deposited and amount will be withdrawn
for the expenditure to be made only for the
activities/programmes
of
the
KVK
including salary of the staff of KVK.

(v). Keep the designation and duties of
the staff in accordance with the provisions
made in the scheme.

(vi). Mortgage the land/ farm of the
KVK to the ICAR before the fund for
infrastructure development is released from
the council and the mortgage paper be
submitted to the council for record.

(vii). Not to divert/ transfer/ terminate
any scientist, technical and office staff of
KVK for any other work other than that of
KVK.

(viii). Treat KVK staff at par for the
purpose of privileges, amenities and
facilities permissible to other staff of the
Grantee."

(Emphasis added)

16. Sub-clauses (ii), (v) and (viii) of
clause 8 of MOU are equally important and
are reproduced hereunder:

"(ii). All staff of KVK shall borne on
the establishment of grantee only. The
administrative control over the staff
employed under the scheme, therefore,
shall vest in the host institution. The
placement of staff working in the project
after the termination of the project shall
the sole responsibility of Grantee (second
party) without having any liability on the
Council. ]
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v). In the case of the development of a
new technique or some innovation, the
Council's permission shall be sought before
publishing it.

(viii) The expenditure incurred from
the
grant
will
be
audited
by
the
Accountant General, Central Revenues /
Commerce, Works and Miscellaneous or
Accountant
General
of
the
State
concerned or the Examiner of the Local
Fund Accounts or Statutory Auditors of
the Grantee Institutions or a Chartered
Accountant or the ICAR's own internal
auditors. Such auditors will furnish to the
Secretary ICAR by the end of December of
each year a certificate to the effect that the
accounts of previous year ending on March
have been audited and the grant has been
spent on the objects for which it was meant.
Any unspent balance should be refunded to
the Council on the termination of the
scheme. Further grants in respect of the
scheme will be stopped unless the audit and
utilization certificates in the prescribed
proforma 'are received within a period of
three years after the end of the financial
year during which the grant has been
made. Besides stoppage of grant of the
KVK scheme due to non- receipt of the
Audit and Utilization Certificate, the
Council at its discretion may stop release of
grant for other schemes being conducted at
the time under the control of the defaulting
grantee till the Audit and Utilization
Certificates due are received."

(Emphasis added)

17. From the perusal of the above it is
clear that the entire KVK staff shall be
borne on the establishment of the grantee
University under its administrative and
disciplinary control and entire work and
conduct
under
the
scheme
will
be
monitored by the host University. The
Council will not at all be responsible for
any action taken by the University in
respect of such employees regarding their
work and conduct.

18. The half yearly report regarding
work and progress of the centre will be sent
to the Council and the grant will be
released
accordingly
as
per
the
performance at every half year. Sub-clause
(xi) of clause 8 of the MOU equally
provides it very clearly that 'the financial
assistance rendered by the Council will
always be acknowledged in any published
account of the work for which the grant is
given'.

19. Vide sub-clause (xxv) of clause 8
the Council reserves the right to terminate
the budget without any notice in the event
of non-compliance of the conditions of
MOU. It is admitted position to the parties
that Council till date has continued to
provide necessary budget to the University
to run KVK and salaries and allowances
have been paid out of that budget.

20. Sri Ganguli has accepted during
the course of his submission that this
budget has been kept under a different head
and State Government has nothing to do
with that budget provided by the Council
inasmuch as those appointed and employed
on the posts of Scientist or Subject Matter
Specialist at the centre (KVK) only as per
the MOU and State Government has never
provided any matching grant or has
directed
for
framing
any
rules
or
regulations to otherwise provide for the
service conditions of such employees. Sri
Ganguli would also not dispute that
Chandra
Shekhar
Azad
Agricultural
University
has
also
not
made
any
amendment in its first Statute which has
been made applicable to the universities
separately to govern the service condition
1 All. Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
669
of the employees like Scientist, Subject
Matter Specialist and other technical staff
or other regular staff working with KVK.

21. In view of the above admitted
fact position the question that has been
raised
by
the
petitioners
is,
that
petitioners would be equally entitled to
such privileges, amenities and facilities
as are permissible and admissible to the
corresponding staff positions in the
University as per sub-clause (viii) of
clause 7 of MOU.

22. It is submitted by learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
that
considering
that
the
petitioners
are
Scientists involved in research work and
imparting instructions in the field of
agriculture science at the centre which
has its own laboratory and classroom as
per MOU, they stand at par with the
teaching/
academic
faculty
of
the
University and this is the reason why the
career advancement scheme (CAS) of the
University
Grants
Commission
(hereinabove referred to as 'UGC') has
been made admissible to the petitioners in
writ petitions/ petition No.- 19750 of
2022, 21543 of 2022 and 21585 of 2022
and this University has not done on its
own but even the ICAR had admitted in
its
letter
dated
8th
August,
2022
addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the
Universities that all those who were
appointed prior to 29th March, 2011 and
have now become Senior Scientist and
Head of KVK would be governed by the
UGC pay package as that has been
adopted and those who were appointed as
Subject
Matter
Specialist
and
were
appointed in grade pay of Rs.6,000/- to
them also UGC Career Advancement
Scheme (CAS) has been made applicable.
The relevant letter written by the Director
on behalf of ICAR dated 8th August, 2022
is reproduced hereunder:

"पत्रािंकः
ATAR/202223/Admn./KVK/964-66 कदनािंकः 08.08.2022

सेिा में,

कुलपधि

समस्ि
कृवष
एििं
प्रौद्योधर्क
विश्वविद्यालय

(उ०प्र०)

विषयः कृवष विज्ञान केन्रों में कायगरि
अधिकाररयों को सेिाधनिृत्त ककये जाने के सम्बन्ि
में।

महोदय,

उपरोक्त विषयक पररषद ने अपने पत्रािंक
सिंख्या
A.Extn.4/17/2019-AE-III
कदनािंक
24.02.2020 से स्पष्ट कर कदया र्था कक 29 माचग,
2011 से पूिग विश्वविद्यालय में धनयुक्त विषय िस्िु
विशेषज्ञ जो कक रू० 6000.00 िेर् पे में धनयुक्त ककये
र्ये र्थे, उन्हें UGC/CASअनुमन्य है एििं सिंबिंधिि
सुवििायें िी देय है। इसी प्रकार िररष्ठ िैज्ञाधनक एििं
अध्यक्ष, केबीके के पदोन्नधि/ित्तों के धलये िी
अनुमन्य है। इस सिंबिंि में माननीय सधचि एििं
महाधनदेशक महोदय, िाकृअनुप, नई कदलली द्वारा
मुख्य सधचि, उत्तर प्रदेश को िी अपने पत्र कदनािंक
02.08.2019 के माध्यम से अिर्ि कराया र्या र्था
सार्थ ही माननीय केन्रीय कृवष मिंत्री, िारि सरकार
नई कदलली द्वारा माननीय मुख्यमिंत्री महोदय, उत्तर
प्रदेश को िी अपने पत्र कदनािंक 05.08.2019 के
माध्यम से अिर्ि कराया र्या र्था।

सिंबिंधिि विषय पर यह िी अिर्ि कराया
जािा है कक उत्तर प्रदेश के SAUs ने KVKs में
कायगरि अधिकाररयों के धलये UGC pay package
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
adopt ककया है जजसमें Senior Seientist/Head
KVKिर्था 29 माचग, 2011 के पूिग धनयुक्त ककये र्ये
विषय िस्िु विशेषज्ञ शाधमल है। अिः उक्त
अधिकाररयों के धलयेpay package में धनिागररि की
र्ई आयु िर्था अन्य लाि देने सिंबिंधिि प्रस्िाि पर
कृवष विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा विचार ककया जा सकिा है।

उक्त आपके र्िंिीरिापूिगक विचारानार्थग एििं
आिश्यक कायगिाही हेिु प्रेवषि है।

ििदीय,

ह०अ०

(यू०एस०र्ौिम)

धनदेशक"

"Letter:
ATAR/2022-23/Admn./
KVK/964-66
Date: 08.08.2022

To,

Vice-Chancellor,

All Agriculture and Technical
University

(U.P.)

Subject:
Regarding
age
of
superannuation of officers in Krishi Vigyan
Kendra.

Sir,

Regarding above it had been
clarified by Council vide its letter No.-
A.Extn.4/17/2019-AE-III date 24.02.2020
that all those Subject Matter Specialist,
who have been appointed in the University
prior to 29th March, 2011 in the Grade Pay
of Rs.6,000/- to them UGC/ CAS is
admissible and also related benefits.

Accordingly,
Senior
Scientists
and Head of Krishi Vigyan Kendra are
entitled to promotion/ allowances. In this
regard, Hon'ble Secretary and Director
General of Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (ICAR), New Delhi had apprised
Chief Secretary to the Government of U.P.
vide letter dated 2nd August, 2019 as well
as the Agriculture Minister, Government of
India, New Delhi had also apprised
Hon'ble the Chief Minister, U.P. vide his
letter dated 5th August, 2019.

In connection with the above, this
is also informed to you State Agriculture
Universities (SAUs) of U.P. have adopted
UGC pay package for the officers working
in KVK which includes Senior Scientist/
Head KVK and also Subject Matter
Specialist who were appointed prior to 29th
March,
2011.
Accordingly,
proposal
relating to the age prescribed for as per the
pay package and other related benefits can
be considered by the Krishi University.

Your
serious
consideration
and
appropriate action is solicited.

Yours' sincerely

Sd. illegible

U.S. Gautam)
Director"

(English translation done by the Court)

23. University has not denied in the
entire pleadings raised in the counter
affidavit that these petitioners have been
granted
matching
salary
to
their
corresponding positions in the regular
faculty position of the university and that
they have receiving all such allowances on
such positions that they have been holding.
One of the documents that requires to be
mentioned here is the letter of the Director
of extension of KVK regarding list of
working staff of KVK under the university
as it shows that petitioners were paid salary
as on 1st April, 2001 in the pay scale of
Rs.8,000-13,500/-, which upon a pointed
query being made, Sri Ganguli admitted to
be the pay scale of the Assistant Professor/
Lecturer of the university.
1 All. Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
671

24. In support of the argument
advanced by learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioners, he has drawn
the attention of the Court towards the
definition which the Uttar Pradesh State
Agricultural
Universities
Act,
1958
prescribed originally vide clause 2 (k),
according
to
which,
the
word
and
expression 'teacher' in relation to the
agricultural universities would include a
person appointed and recognized by the
university for the purposes of imparting
instructions or conducting and guiding
research or extension programmes. The
definition as contained originally under
Section 2(k) of the Act, 1958 is reproduced
hereunder:

"2(k). "Teacher" means a person
appointed or recognized by the University
for the purpose of imparting instruction or
conducting
and
guiding
research
or
extension programme and includes a
person who may be declared by the statutes
to be a teacher."

25. From a bare reading of the
aforesaid provision it is clear that whoever
is appointed and recognized by the
University and is conducting and guiding
research or is doing extension programme
would be a teacher. Now the words and
expressions 'extension programme' is to be
read in relation to the words and
expressions 'imparting instructions and
conducting and guiding research' and,
therefore, whoever is appointed either as a
Scientist in a higher category or Assistant
Teacher or Subject Matter Specialist in
basic category of a teacher as Assistant
Professor would be taken to be conducting
research work, giving instructions in the
extension programme of the university
which would include KVK as that is an
extension programme vide MOU signed
between the University and the Council.
This definition of 'teacher' has come to be
amended in the year 2019 vide amendment
act being U.P. Act No.- 9 of 2019 amending
Section 2(k) thus:

"2(k). "Teacher" must a person not
below the rank of Assistant Professor duly
appointed as per norms and guidelines of
UGC and ICAR in this regard by the
University."

26. Now with effect from 2019, a
teacher would mean a person not below the
rank of Assistant Professor duly appointed
as per the norms and guidelines of UGC
and ICAR.

27. Learned Senior Advocate has
argued that this amended definition would
have a prospective effect inasmuch as the
Scientist and Research faculty appointed to
KVK are appointed as per the ICAR
guidelines only for the purposes of KVK as
these are the centres which are run
basically on the aid of the ICAR in
furtherance of its object of scientific
research in the field of agriculture. It is
argued that in the judgment of Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Dr.
Mithilesh Kumar Pandey and others v.
State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary
Legislative Section Government of U.P.
and others (Writ - A No.- 7847 of 2022)
decided on 17th May, 2023, it has been
very clearly held that the definition would
operate prospectively only so all those who
were appointed to discharge duties as per
the old definition of teacher, would
continue to be treated as teacher. Their
status, according to him, cannot be
changed.

28. It is argued that petitioners since
have been availing all the privileges,
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
facilities and amenities at par with their
corresponding position holders of the
University, they would also be entitled to
continue till the age of attaining 62 years as
the University has enhanced the age of
superannuation for teaching faculty from
60 years to 62 years and this amendment
has taken place prior to the amendment
made in the year 2019.

29. Learned Senior Advocate has also
drawn the attention of the Court to three
orders of the University referred to in
paragraph 42 of the writ petition in respect
of Dr. Ramesh Chand Rathi dated 11th
August, 2020 and Dr. Vijay Vikram Singh
dated 7th February, 2022 and the same
University, who were also working at
KVK, were permitted to attain the age of
62 years. Paragraph 42 of the writ petition
is reproduced hereunder:

"42.
That,
till
07.02.2022
the
competent authority i.e., respondent no.2
and 3 have been adhering to the rule of
continuing
the
identically
situated
teachers, namely Associate Professor in
KVK, Muzaffarnagar and KVK, Dataganj
Budaun - 2, by allowing them to continue
to serve till attaining the age of 62 years.
A photocopy of the order or retirement
for Dr. Ramesh Chand Rathi dated
11.08.2020 and the order of retirement
for
Dr.
Ajay
Vikram
Singh
dated
07.02.2022 are collectively being filed
herewith and marked as Annexure No. -
18 to this writ petition."

30. Learned Senior Advocate submits
that in reply to the aforesaid paragraph 42
the only reply given vide paragraph 16 of
the counter affidavit is that contents being
matters of record, need no reply. Paragraph
16 of the counter affidavit of the University
is reproduced hereunder:

"16. That the contents of paragraph
no. 42 of the writ petition are matters of
record and hence need no reply."

31. Learned counsel appearing for
the
University
has
contended
that
petitioners since were not appointed
against teaching cadre strength of the
University, they cannot be taken to be
teachers within the definition. He submits
that even if the old definition included
persons imparting instructions in research
work and those involved in extension
programme like research in agricultural
science, would mean teacher but since
petitioners were not appointed to the
sanctioned faculty of the University and
were appointed under a project entered
with the ICAR under an MOU, they at the
most can be treated to be Project Scientists
and Project Officers.

32. He submits that even if they have
been paid salary as per the MOU by the
Council but their continuance in the
establishment of the centre would be as per
the MOU and not as per the age prescribed
under the State Act or First Statute of
University as they are not employees of the
University. It is also contended by Sri
Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for the
University that there is a letter of Special
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh
dated 18th February, 2020 which prescribes
that the persons working at the KVK are
not eligible to the career advancement
scheme. He further submits that the
university has never adopted these staff of
the KVK to its own faculty. Sri Ganguly
submits that the university though had
initially been discrepant with the State
Government on the issue but has ultimately
stood convinced that these staff of KVK,
may be in the rank of Scientists or Assistant
Professors or Subject Matter Specialists,
1 All. Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
673
would not fall within the definition of
teacher and hence would be made to retire
at the age of 60 years as a staff of KVK.

33. Sri Ganguly has also drawn the
attention of the Court to a latest letter issued
by the Director, ICAR, Kanpur, according to
which, the employees including petitioners,
who were appointed at the strength of the
KVK under the MOU entered with the
ICAR, would not be entitled to the age of
superannuation as Professor or teaching
faculty of the university and if it is done it
will be in gross violation of terms and
conditions of the MOU.

34. Upon a pointed query being made
as to whether this letter has been issued by
adopting any resolution by the Council to
interpret the MOU, Sri Ganguly submits
that as per the recitals made in the letter
dated 23rd November, 2023, it has been
vetted by a law officer but there is no
reference of the Council's resolution, if any.
In the last Sri Ganguli submits that the
university
being
a
State
University
governed by the Act, 1958 as adopted vide
Government order issued on 14th June,
2022 by the State Government and the
subsequent orders and made the petitioners
to retire accordingly.

35. Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned
Advocate
appearing
for
the
other
university, namely, Chandra Shekhar Azad
University in one connected matter, adopts
the arguments advanced by Sri Ganguli
with a further addition that judgment in the
case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey
(supra) would not apply as there in that
case there was a resolution of the Board of
Management of the university concerned
taking such staff of the KVK at par with the
faculty of university but here there is no
such resolution placed before the Court.

36. Upon a pointed query being made
as to whether any such pleadings have been
made in the counter affidavit, he submits
that this issue did not crop up earlier,
therefore, no pleadings have been raised in
this regard.

37. Sri Ashok Mehta, learned
Additional Advocate General submits that
the Government order dated 14th June,
2022 very clearly stipulates that those
appointed on non-recurring grants cannot
be absorbed against the regular cadre
strength of the University and that is why
there was a complaint that the university's
budget under the recurring grant and
otherwise the budget as a non-recurring
grant granted by the State Government
from time to time, was being misused.

38. Sri Mehta would, however, very
fairly admit that the State Government has
nothing to do with the MOU reached
between the university and ICAR. He very
fairly admits that neither there is any stake
in respect of administration of the KVK or
any financial stake of the State Government
in the matter. He would further not dispute
that the controversy regarding the orders
dated
14th
June,
2022
and
the
consequential order dated 29th July, 2022
and 10th November, 2022 have been held
to be not having any bearing so far as the
conditions of service of such officers
working in KVK is concerned and they
would be entitled to the benefit as
admissible to the teaching faculty of the
university in the Division Bench judgment
delivered in the caes of Dr. Mithilesh
Kumar Pandey (supra) as it has already
covered the subject matter in issue and in
respect of the orders that are impugned
herein this petition. Sri Mehta, however,
submits that this judgment is under
challenge before the Supreme Court but
674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would further agree that only SLP has been
filed and there is no further order in the
matter. So as of now, according to him, he
would not dispute that the judgment holds
to be a good law unless and until reversed
by the higher court.

39. Having heard learned counsel
for the respective parties, noted their
arguments as above and having perused
the
records
particularly
the
order
impugned in the petitions, I find that
services of the petitioners have been
dispensed with in compliance of the
Government order dated 14th June, 2022,
29th July, 2022 and 10th November, 2022
on the ground that petitioners have
attained superannuation at 60 years of
age. Thus, petitioners have been relieved
from the services of KVK.

40.