Rajan Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of 72 writ petitions, i.e. CWP Nos. 8025 of 2007, 11949 & 19701 of 1998, 284, 934, 1043, 9217, 9765 & 17760 of 1999, 1907, 2170, 9692, 10864 & 10869 of 2000, 11465, 11712, 16972 & 17498 of 2002, 1720, 4000, 6580, 14759, 18007 & 19164 of 2003, 531, 1708, 3226, 8581, 11372, 14471 & 18980 of 2004, 1332, 4914, 8170, 9821, 13639 &17234 of 2005, 1411, 7429, 10722, 12774, 13037, 15650, 16767 & 20096 of 2006, 2900, 4860, 7689, 12968, 13779, 15983, 17379, 17473, 19004, 19005 & 19111 of 2007, 3084, 4926, 5272, 6817, 7093, 7101, 7851, 13099, 13104, 13260, 15367, 15376, 16381, 17023, 17235 & 18589 of 2008. In these writ petitons, common question of increase in age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years and 62 to 65 years is involved. Since in all the writ petitions, the Petitioners pray for the same relief, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) HOWEVER , facts are being taken from CWP No. 8025 of 2007 for the purpose of deciding the issue in hand. The Petitioners are serving in the Punjab University as Readers, Lecturers, Professors etc. Certain other Petitioners are from the non -teaching faculty. However, all the Petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for increase in age of superannuation in terms of UGC recommendations and in terms of a Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development letter, dated 27th July, 1998 and another letter from the same Ministry, dated 6th November, 1998 wherein increase in age of superannuation of non -teaching staff has been recommended. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the decision, dated 23rd July, 2002, whereby proposal for increase in the age of superannuation was rejected by the Government of India observing that 40% of the financial burden/deficit arising as a result of increase in age in superannuation had to be brone by the Punjab Government and Punjab Government having already refused to bear the burden, Government of India was not in a position to agree to the proposal. It is this letter, Annexure P -13 which has been inpugned by the Petitioners.
(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.;