In this case of Kanchan Saini vs University of Delhi and Ors, the matter was brought to the bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Sanjeev Narula after the judgement was passed from the single judge bench in which the plea was filed to have the same recognition to the Instructors in Delhi University as the Teachers, and the plea was on the face of it. The issue in this case which was brought before the court is that the appellants after seeing the advertisements of Delhi University requirement of instructors and not teachers, in stenography to which they applied and joined to their respective posts and have been serving as instructors wanted to have the benefit of the retirement age of "teachers" which was raised from 62 to 65 years by the recent change in the Government policy as a result of the decision taken by the Ministry of Human Resource and Development. Therefore, it was argued by the appellants that the term "teachers" defined in section 2(g) of the Delhi University Act 1922 is to be considered while construing the communications of Government conveying its policy decision regarding increasing the age of "teachers" from 62 years to 65 years.
Also it was contended by the appellants that they come under the definition of teachers as they do various academic activities and take teaching assignments in the University. To which Central Government replied that though the "instructors" may be generically sometimes considered as the "teachers" under the Delhi University Act but that does not completely qualifies them to avail benefits of enhancement of age of superannuation of teachers in the university. Also the respondent Government to solidify its arguments mentioned about its communications with UGC regarding the enhancement in the pay scale of teachers if ever to be done in the centrally funded university/college it will not be generally done to all teachers but Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors are to be considered. Respondent Government also showed it communication with UGC dated 19-04-2007 that enhancement in the age of superannuation is to be done only of the teachers who are involved in conducting classroom programs and courses of study in such centrally funded institutions.
Therefore while hearing to the matter and considering the above mentioned documents of the appellants and the respondent, court reached to the conclusion that teacher, to whom the age of superannuation policy concern is not as same as the term "teacher" used in the Delhi University Act and thus could not find it necessary to interfere with the order of single judge bench and dismissed the appeal.