Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Granting Teacher Benefits | IGNOU Directors Classified as Non-Teaching Officials, Not Entitled to Enhanced Superannuation Age of 65 Years
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that officials serving as Directors and equivalent positions in the Indira Gandhi National Open University cannot be regarded as “teachers” and are therefore not entitled to the enhanced retirement age of 65 years applicable to teaching staff. The Bench observed that a 2007 Ordinance, which was believed to have redesignated such positions as teachers, had in fact never been validly promulgated and was subsequently withdrawn by the University itself. Allowing the appeal filed by IGNOU, the Court ruled that these officers fall within the category of “other academic staff” and remain governed by their prescribed service conditions, including the retirement age of 62 years, as per the applicable Statutes and administrative instructions.
The dispute arose from a claim by certain officers of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) holding positions such as Joint Director, Deputy Director, Additional Director, and Senior Regional Director in the Regional Services Division. These officers contended that they were entitled to be treated as “teachers” under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, and consequently eligible for the higher retirement age of 65 years and benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme applicable to teachers. They relied on an Ordinance purportedly framed by IGNOU in 2007, which, according to them, redesignated their posts as teaching positions. The University and the Union of India opposed this claim, maintaining that the Ordinance had never been promulgated and had, in fact, been withdrawn with ministerial concurrence.
The respondents based their claim primarily on Sections 2(p) and 5(1)(vi) of the IGNOU Act, which define and empower the University to designate teachers, and on two internal circulars issued in 1992 and 1994 that classified certain posts as “other academic staff” and equated their conditions of service with those of teachers. They also referred to communications from the Ministry of Human Resource Development issued in 2007 and 2008 regarding the enhancement of the retirement age of teachers in centrally funded educational institutions. The petitioners argued that, given the nature of their duties—such as preparation of course material, student guidance, evaluation, and distance learning coordination—they effectively performed academic functions equivalent to teaching.
IGNOU, on the other hand, produced correspondence between its Vice-Chancellor and the Ministry of Human Resource Development demonstrating that the 2007 Ordinance relied upon by the petitioners was never approved by the Visitor as required under the Statutes, and therefore had no legal effect. The University emphasized that its Statutes clearly distinguished between “teachers” and “other academic staff,” with separate service conditions and retirement ages. It further pointed to a 2017 amendment to Statute 17(9) which specifically enhanced the retirement age of “teachers” from 62 to 65 years but did not extend the same to other academic staff.
Before the Division Bench, the key question was whether the respondents could be deemed “teachers” within the meaning of the Act and entitled to the same benefits. The Bench examined the statutory provisions, relevant communications, and the administrative record, ultimately holding that the 2007 Ordinance never came into force and that the respondents’ posts continued to fall under the category of “other academic staff,” governed by the retirement age of 62 years.
The Bench recorded that “without doubt, the learned Single Judge has penned a very well-reasoned, and systematically analysed judgment. We are, however, constrained to reverse it primarily because the learned Single Judge has primarily relied on an Ordinance assumed to have been promulgated by the IGNOU in 2007, whereas, in fact, the Ordinance was never promulgated, and was withdrawn by IGNOU itself.”
Referring to the correspondence between IGNOU and the Ministry of Education, the Court noted, “The MHRD – now the MOE – has placed written correspondence, between the VC of the IGNOU and the MHRD, clearly stating that the 2007 Ordinance was withdrawn by the IGNOU itself.” It held that under Statute 2(4), the Vice Chancellor had the authority to withdraw the proposal, and the decision was never challenged by the respondents.
The Division Bench further stated that “De hors the 2007 Ordinance, the respondents, really speaking, have no case.” It found that Statute 17(9), as amended in 2015 and later in 2017, continued to refer only to teachers. The Bench rejected the respondents’ argument that the Board of Management’s 65th Meeting in 1999 had amended Statute 17(9) to include “academic staff,” noting that the 2017 communication from the Ministry showed otherwise.
The Court observed that “the IGNOU, however, is governed by the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, Ordinances and Statutes issued under the Act and administrative instructions notified from time to time.”
The Court also took note of procedural lapses in the writ petition. It found that the additional affidavit introducing new grounds and documents had not been formally taken on record, and the respondents in the writ petition had no opportunity to contest it. The Bench held that this omission led to an incomplete factual understanding before the Single Judge, resulting in reliance on an invalid document.
It stated, “The 2007 Ordinance was never, in fact, implemented. Rather, it was withdrawn by the IGNOU itself.” The Court observed that this withdrawal had not been challenged by the respondents and, therefore, the Ordinance could not be treated as operative.
The Division Bench stated that “while it may be conceivably possible for the respondents to contend that they are ‘other academic staff’ within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, they cannot be treated as ‘teachers’, especially as Section 2(p) itself refers to ‘teachers’ and ‘other academic staff’ as distinct categories.” It rejected the argument that the functions performed by the respondents in a distance education setup automatically qualified as teaching under the Act.
In its analysis of Statute 17(9), the Court recorded, “There is nothing to indicate that Statute 17(9) was ever amended to include ‘teachers/academic staff’. Even as on 15 December 2017, Statute 17(9)(a) referred only to ‘teachers’.” The Court found that the subsequent amendment approved by the Visitor on that date only increased the retirement age of teachers from 62 to 65 years and did not extend the benefit to any other category.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Orders Fresh Review of Patent Bid for Zero-Liquid-Discharge Recovery Process
The Bench clarified that the 2007 letters from the Ministry enhancing the retirement age of teachers to 65 were explicitly limited to those “actually engaged in teaching classes/courses/programmes of study.” It quoted the Ministry’s clarification of 19 April 2007 stating that “the provisions shall not be applicable to any other categories of employees… notwithstanding the fact that the posts they hold may be considered as ‘equivalent’ to teaching positions.” The Court held that the respondents did not fulfil these criteria, as their appointments were administrative and not teaching positions under sanctioned posts.
Concluding its judgment, the Division Bench held, “For all the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, which is accordingly quashed and set aside.If, however, any financial benefits have been earned by any of the respondents as a consequence of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, there shall be no recovery from them of the amounts so earned.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aly Mirza and Ms. Ankita Singh, Advocates for IGNOU.
For the Respondents: Dr. S. Gopakumaran Nair, Senior Advocate with Ms. Priya Balakrishnan, Advocates; Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, Ms. Rakhi Kaushik, Mr. Dharmendra, and Mr. Abhinav Kumar Shrivastava, Advocates; Ms. Monika Arora, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Subrodeep Saha and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocates.
Case Title: Indira Gandhi National Open University and Ors. v. Dr. T.R. Srinivasan and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8801-DB
Case Number: LPA 118/2024
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul
