SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has affirmed that Associate Professors of Nursing at the Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST) are subject to a retirement age of 60, ruling that the extended retirement age of 62 applicable to general University teachers does not extend to those serving in the University’s constituent colleges.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that a Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani, delivered this judgment on August 11, 2026. The court dismissed a petition filed by Asmat Parveen, who had challenged her retirement, stating that the IUST Executive Council had explicitly excluded faculty members of constituent colleges from the enhanced superannuation age. Consequently, the court found that the University had acted correctly in retiring Parveen upon her reaching 60 years of age.
Parveen, represented by advocates Shafqat Nazir and Sabreena Bashir, had contested the April 9, 2026, judgment from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, which had previously dismissed her claim. She also challenged the University’s retirement order dated March 31, 2026. The Islamic University of Science and Technology and its Vice-Chancellor were represented by Government Advocate Jahangir Dar.
Parveen’s legal journey began after she had served at Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), Soura. She applied for the position of Associate Professor in IUST’s Nursing College in response to an advertisement from December 2015. After her selection and appointment in May 2016, she was relieved by SKIMS in June 2016 to join IUST. Her prior service at SKIMS was subsequently recognized by the University for service and retirement benefits.
Her primary contention was that she should have been permitted to continue working beyond the age of 60, citing applicable regulations and IUST’s own statutes that provided for higher retirement ages for University teaching faculty. She also referenced the case of an IUST Assistant Professor, Abdul Majeed Andrabi, who, according to her, had been allowed to continue until the age of 62.
Parveen further relied on Statute 5.18 of IUST, which she argued stipulated superannuation at 65 for teachers in permanent full-time service, contingent upon the Chancellor’s assent. She maintained that the Nursing faculty was an integral part of the University’s institutional structure and should not be subjected to a different retirement age.
The University, however, contested this assertion. It argued that Parveen belonged to a distinct cadre of Nursing faculty serving at the Alamdar Memorial College of Nursing and Medical Technology, Charar-i-Sharief, a constituent college operating under a separate regulatory framework. The University’s position was that the prevailing regulatory norms for nursing institutions, including those set by the Indian Nursing Council, prescribed 60 years as the age of superannuation.
The High Court’s detailed examination of the University’s statutory framework became pivotal in the case. The Bench observed that Clause 5.4 of Chapter IV of the IUST Statutes clearly mandated that an officer or teacher of the University would retire upon reaching 60 years of age. Similarly, Clause 5.18 prescribed 60 years as the age of superannuation for teachers in permanent full-time service.
The Court noted that while IUST Statutes were later amended to allow for superannuation at 65, this amendment was conditional on the Chancellor’s assent, which was never obtained. Subsequently, the Vice-Chancellor utilized emergency powers to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62, subject to ratification by the University’s Executive Council.
The matter was reviewed by the Executive Council during its 10th meeting on July 4, 2020. While ratifying the Vice-Chancellor’s decision to increase the retirement age for University teachers from 60 to 62, the Executive Council made a specific exclusion for teachers serving in constituent colleges. The resolution explicitly stated that the enhanced age “shall not be applicable to the Constituent Colleges of the University”.
The Bench pointed out that a subsequent University order dated November 11, 2020, which implemented the Executive Council’s decision, did not explicitly reiterate the exclusion concerning constituent colleges. However, the Court ruled that this order must be interpreted in conjunction with the Executive Council’s decision of July 4, 2020.
“the age of superannuation of the teaching faculty of the University is 62 years. However, the teaching faculty of the constituent Colleges, like the petitioner, would not be entitled to the benefit of the enhanced age and shall retire on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years,” the Court stated in its ruling.
The Bench also observed that neither the Executive Council’s decision nor the subsequent University order had been specifically challenged by Parveen before the Tribunal or the High Court. “In the absence of any specific challenge laid to the University Executive Council decision and the consequent University Order dated 11.11.2020, the petitioner was bound by the University Statutes as they existed at the time of her attaining the age of 60 years,” the Court remarked.
The Court chose not to adjudicate on the broader question of whether the University’s classification of teachers in constituent colleges as distinct from those on the main campus was legally permissible, stating that this issue was outside the scope of the present petition. “Suffice it to say that the University followed the Statutes and retired the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years,” the Bench concluded, adding that the University’s decision could not be faulted on the grounds presented.
The Bench also addressed the petitioner’s reliance on the University Grants Commission Regulations of 2018 and Indian Nursing Council regulations. It noted that the Tribunal had already considered these provisions and determined that, in the absence of their formal adoption by IUST, they could not grant the claimed benefit to the petitioner.
The judgment detailed that IUST teachers were initially set to retire at 60. An earlier Executive Council approval to raise this to 65 was pending the Chancellor’s assent, which was never granted. Subsequently, the Vice-Chancellor’s decision to raise the age to 62 was ratified by the Executive Council with the specific exclusion of faculty from constituent colleges.
“In view of the aforesaid clear position obtaining from the University Statutes, we are left with no option, but to go by the stand of the respondent-University that the petitioner was rightly retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years,” the Bench concluded.
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court formally dismissed it. The judgment was reserved on August 6 and officially pronounced on August 11, 2026, in Srinagar.
The Chenab Times News Desk