Hyderabad

High Court Dismisses Plea to Raise Agricultural University Retirement Age to 65

By Editorial·12 June 2026·1 min read

A photorealistic wide shot of the historic Telangana High Court building in Hyderabad under bright, natural daylight. Th...

In Hyderabad, Justice K Sarath of the Telangana High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by faculty members of PJTSAU and PVNRTVU seeking to raise their retirement age to 65 years. The court ruled on June 12, 2026, that enhancing the superannuation age is a policy decision belonging exclusively to the State Government.

The petitioners, comprising professors and associate professors from Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University (PJTSAU) and P.V. Narsimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University (PVNRTVU), challenged their current retirement age of 60 years. They sought parity with teaching faculty at other State universities who benefit from an increased retirement age.

The faculty members argued they were entitled to benefits under G.O.Ms.No.3, dated January 28, 2025. This government order enhanced the superannuation age from 60 to 65 years for teaching faculty drawing UGC scales in universities under the administrative control of the Higher Education Department. The petitioners contended that since they also draw UGC pay scales, denying them the extension amounted to discrimination. They also cited interim orders from the Andhra Pradesh High Court in similar cases.

The State Government opposed the petitions, clarifying that PJTSAU and PVNRTVU do not fall under the Higher Education Department. Instead, they operate under the administrative control of the Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Departments, respectively. The government argued that G.O.Ms.No.3 applies strictly to universities under the Higher Education Department, and separate clarifications had already excluded the petitioner universities.

Justice K Sarath upheld the government's stance, stating that drawing UGC scales or performing similar duties does not automatically grant parity in retirement age. The court noted that superannuation is governed by statutory rules and specific service conditions of each institution.

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court concluded that courts cannot direct an extension of the retirement age without a formal policy decision by the government. Consequently, because the petitioner universities are not under the Higher Education Department and were explicitly excluded from G.O.Ms.No.3, the court dismissed all the writ petitions.