Persons Holding Director Positions In IGNOU Not Teachers, Cannot Seek Benefit Of Enhanced Superannuation Age: Delhi High Court

A division bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul observed that an Ordinance was “assumed” to have been promulgated by IGNOU in 2007, redesignating the Directors as teachers.

However, the judges clarified that the Ordinance was never promulgated, and was withdrawn by IGNOU itself.

“Dehors the 2007 Ordinance, the respondents, really speaking, have no case,” they said.

The Court was dealing with an appeal preferred by IGNOU against a single bench order granting relief to the Respondents here, who superannuated from the posts of Joint Director, Deputy Director, Addl. Director and Senior Regional Director in the Regional Services Division of the IGNOU.

The respondents sought a declaration that they were entitled to superannuate at 65, rather than 62, and that they were entitled to the benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme.

Both these dispensations are available to “teachers” and the respondents contended that they are also “teachers”.

It was further contended that IGNOU imparts distance education and therefore, the concept of a “teacher” in the IGNOU is qualitatively different from that of a teacher in a conventional university.

It was argued that there is no classical concept of “classroom teaching” in IGNOU and that the services provided by the respondents, which include preparation of study material, making the material available, to a certain extent evaluation of performance of students and the like, may not involve classical classroom teaching, but would be entitled, in the context of an organization providing distance education, to be regarded as teaching activity.

The Respondents had also relied on a letter issued by the Union Ministry of Education back in March 2007, increasing the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years for persons “who were holding teaching positions on regular employment against sanctioned posts”.

It was claimed if not teachers, Respondents were entitled to be treated as “other academic staff”, in which capacity, too, they would be entitled to the reliefs they seek.

IGNOU contested this position, stating that the offer of appointment pursuant to which the Respondents were appointed stated that their major functions would be academic, administrative and promotional. Thus, the varsity argued that Respondents were not appointed for performing teaching duties.

The High Court at the outset observed that IGNOU is governed by a “rigid statutory scheme”— the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, Ordinances and Statutes issued under the Act and administrative instructions notified from time to time.

It then noted that “Teachers” and “other academic staff” are separate categories of employees under the Act and under the Statutes. It referred to Section 2(p) of the Act in this regard and observed,

“While it is permissible to extend, to any other employee of IGNOU, the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation as has been made available to teachers, that has either to be by way of an Ordinance or by way of a statute. There is, as we have noticed, neither any Ordinance nor any statute which extends, to any other academic staff such as the respondents, the enhanced age of superannuation as is available to “teachers”.”

The Court further said the two categories— “Teachers” and “other academic staff”— are governed by separate qualifications, and their selection process is also different.

“Though it was sought to be emphasized that the concept of a “teacher” in the IGNOU could not be equated with the concept of a teacher in a brick-mortar institution, we cannot travel down that path, for the simple reason that the Act, by which the IGNOU is covered, itself distinguishes between “teachers” and “other academic staff”. Not only this, separate educational qualifications are prescribed for both categories of staff, with separate selection process,” the Court added and allowed IGNOU's appeal.

It nonetheless ordered that if any financial benefits have been earned by any of the respondents as a consequence of the impugned Single bench judgment, there shall be no recovery from them.

Appearance: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aly Mirza and Ms. Ankita Singh, Advs. for IGNOU; Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, Ms. Rakhi Kaushik, Mr. Dharmendra and Mr. Abhinav Kumar Shrivastava, Advs. for R-2. Dr. S. Gopakumaran Nair, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Priya Balakrishnan, Advs for R-1, 3 & 4 Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subrodeep Saha and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advs. For R-5/UOI

Case title: IGNOU v. Dr. T.R Srinivasan And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1265

Case no.: LPA 118/2024

Click here to read order