Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5527-5543 OF 2013 [@ SLP (C) Nos. 18766-18782/2010]

Jagdish Prasad Sharma etc. etc.    … Appellants

Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.    … Respondents

WITH

C.A. NO.5544 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29332 OF 2010 C.A. NO.5545 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.10661 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5546 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.10783 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5547 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.11605 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5548 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16523 OF 2011 C.A. NOS.5549-5551 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.12990- 12992 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5552 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16845 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5553 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.21611 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5554 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.21609 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5555 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16619 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5556 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.17446 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5557 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23392 OF 2011

Page 2

2

C.A. NO.5558 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.25446 OF 2011 C.A. NOS.5559-5560 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.24037- 24038 OF 2011 WP (C) NO.348 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5561 OF 2013 @ SLP(C)NO.3679 OF 2009 WP (C) NO.442 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5562 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.31422 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5563 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.1631 OF 2012 C.A. NOS.5564-5566 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.1632-1634  OF 2012 C.A. NO.5567 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.1635 OF 2012 C.A. NOS.5569-5573 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.1636-1640  OF 2012 C.A. NO.5574 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.1641 OF 2012 C.P. (C) 425 OF 2011 IN C.A. NO.5555 OF 2013 @  SLP(C) NO.16619 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5575 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.1544 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5576 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.2645 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5577 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.3028 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5578 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.3823 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5579 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.3077 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5580 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.2785 OF 2012 C.P. (C) 316 OF 2011 IN C.A. NO.5548 OF 2013 @  SLP(C) NO.16523 OF 2011 C.P. (C) 57 OF 2012 IN C.A. NO.5548OF 2013 @  SLP(C) NO.16523 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5581 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.6003 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5582 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.6430 OF 2012 W.P. (C) NO.61 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5583 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.4020 OF 2012 C.A. NOS.5584-5592 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.6915-6923  OF 2012 C.A. NO.5593 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.8153 OF 2012 C.A. NOS.5594-5606 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.8887-8899  OF 2012 C.A. NO.5607 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.13359 OF 2012

Page 3

3

C.A. NOS.5608-5610 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.13271- 13273 OF 2012 C.A. NOS.5611-5615 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.10765- 10769 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5616 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30051 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5617 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.32571 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5618 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30990 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5619 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.32596 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5620 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23275 OF 2010 C.A. NOS.5621-5629 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.18218- 18226 OF 2012 C.A. NOS.5630-5653 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.9198-9221  OF 2011 C.A. NO.5654 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.14163 OF 2011 C.A. NOS.5655-5658 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.14350- 14353 OF 2011 C.A. NOS.5659-5660 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.16300- 16301 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5661 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.18157 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5662 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.411 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5663 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.21508 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5664 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.25470 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5665 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.36126 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5666 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.7392 OF 2011 C.A. NOS.5667-5668 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.16107- 16108 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5669 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16577 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5670 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16579 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5671 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16601 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5672 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16612 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5673 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16645 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5674 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16650 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5675 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16651 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5676 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16711 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5677 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.17296 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5678 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.17439 OF 2011

Page 4

4

C.A. NO.5679 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16421 OF 2011 C.A. NOS.5680-5682 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.22670- 22672 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5683 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.26449 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5684 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.24772 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5685 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.28373 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5686 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29852 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5687 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29975 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5688 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23452 OF 2012 C.A. NOS.5689-5690 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.14694- 14695 OF 2011 T.C.(C) Nos.100-106 OF 2013 @ TP (C) NOs.1062- 1068 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5691 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29283 OF 2010 C.A. NO.5692 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29344 OF 2010 C.A. NO.5693 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30735 OF 2010 C.A. NO.5694 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30736 OF 2010 C.A. NO.5695 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30737 OF 2010 C.A. NO.5696 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30738 OF 2010 C.A. NO.5697 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29807 OF 2010 C.A. NO.5698 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.35327 OF 2010 C.A. NO.5699 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.2348 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5700 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.2349 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5701 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.26233 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5702 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.21396 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5703 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.26724 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5704 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.22622 OF 2013  (CC 18057/2012) C.A. NO.5705 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.33411 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5706 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30250 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5707 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.22623 OF 2013  (CC 18532/2012) C.A. NO.5708 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.22624 OF 2013  (CC 19243/2012) WP (C) NO.88 OF 2012

Page 5

5

C.A. NOS.5709-5773 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.32136- 32200 OF 2011 C.A. NOS.5774-5788 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.32748- 32762 OF 2011 C.A. NOS.5789-5790 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.32768- 32769 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5791 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.36606 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5792 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.4202 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5793 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.5262 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5794 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.12128 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5795 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.12129 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5796 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16519 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5797 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23339 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5798 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23342 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5799 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23338 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5800 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.20136 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5801 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.37288 OF 2012 C.A. NOS.5802-5803 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.37947- 37948 OF 2012 C.A. NOS.5804-5805 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.37949- 37950 OF 2012 C.A. NOS.5806-5809 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.8301-8304  OF 2012 T.C.(C) NO.27 OF 2013 C.A. NO.5810 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.6724 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5811 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.13747 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5812 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.14676 OF 2012 W.P(C) NO.83 OF 2013 C.A. NO.5813 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.36955 OF 2012 C.A. NO.5814 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.28326 OF 2012 W.P.(C) NO.53 OF 2013 C.A. NO.5815 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.8147 OF 2013 C.A. NO.5816 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.22626 OF 2013  (CC 5514/2013) C.A. NO.5817 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.22627 OF 2013  (CC 5518/2013

Page 6

6

C.A. NO.5818 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.22628 OF 2013  (8248/2013)

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.

1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions,  

which were taken up along with the Writ Petitions  

and Transferred Cases, as they all involve common  

questions of law and fact.   

2. The  common  thread  running  through  all  these  

various  matters  is  the  question  as  to  whether  

certain regulations framed by the University Grants  

Commission  had  a  binding  effect  on  educational  

institutions being run by the different States and  

even under State enactments.   

3. The  University  Grants  Commission  Act  was  

enacted by Parliament in 1956  inter alia with the

Page 7

7

object of making provision for the coordination and  

determination of standards in Universities and for  

that  purpose,  to  establish  a  University  Grants  

Commission,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  

“Commission”.   Under  the  University  Grants  

Commission Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as  

the “UGC Act”, the Commission is required to take,  

in  consultation  with  the  Universities  or  other  

concerned bodies, all such steps as it may think  

fit  for  the  promotion  and  coordination  of  

University education and for the determination and  

maintenance of standards of teaching, examination  

and research in Universities.   

4. Section 12 of the UGC Act inter alia empowers  

the Commission to inquire into the financial needs  

of the Universities, allocate and disburse grants  

to Universities established or incorporated by or  

under  a  Central  Act,  out  of  the  Funds  of  the

Page 8

8

Commission for the maintenance and development of  

such  Universities  or  for  any  other  general  or  

specified  purpose.   The  Commission  was  also  

empowered  to  allocate  and  disburse,  out  of  such  

Funds, such grants to other Universities, as it may  

deem necessary or appropriate for the development  

of  such  Universities  or  for  the  maintenance  or  

development or for any other general or specified  

purpose.  The Commission was further empowered to  

allocate and disburse, such grants to institutions  

deemed to be Universities, as it deemed necessary,  

for similar purposes.

5. Section 25 of the UGC Act empowers the Central  

Government to make Rules to carry out the purposes  

of the Act by notification in the Official Gazette,  

with regard to the formation and the functioning of  

the Commission.  Section 26 empowers the Commission  

to make Regulations consistent with the provisions

Page 9

9

of  the  Act  and  the  Rules  made  thereunder,  by  

notification in the Official Gazette inter alia in  

regard to defining the qualifications that should  

ordinarily  be  required  of  any  person  to  be  

appointed to the teaching staff of the University  

having regard to the branch of education in which  

he or she is required to give instructions and to  

define the minimum standards of instructions for  

the grant of any degree by any University.  In  

keeping with their statutory character, the Rules  

and Regulations framed by the Central Government  

and the Commission are required to be placed before  

each House of Parliament, while it is in session,  

for a total period of 30 days.

6. Section  20  of  the  UGC  Act,  particularly,  

provides  that  in  the  discharge  of  its  functions  

under the said Act, the Commission is to be guided  

by such directions on questions of policy relating

Page 10

10

to national purposes, as may be given to it by the  

Central Government.

7. On 24th December, 1998, the Commission issued a  

Notification  on  revision  of  pay  scales,  minimum  

qualification  for  appointment  of  teachers  in  

Universities, colleges and other measures for the  

maintenance  of  standards.   In  Clause  5  of  the  

Notification, it was specified that the Commission  

expected that the entire scheme of revision of pay  

scales, together with all conditions attached to  

it, would be implemented by the State Governments,  

as a composite scheme without any modifications,  

except  for  the  date  of  implementation  and  the  

scales of pay, as indicated in the Government of  

India Notifications dated 27.7.1998, 22.9.1998, and  

6.11.1998.   Clause  16  of  the  Notification  also  

indicated that the teachers will retire at the age  

of 62 years, but it would be open to a University

Page 11

11

or a college to re-employ a superannuated teacher.  

Subsequently, the Commission, in exercise of the  

powers conferred upon it under Section 26(1)(e) and  

(f) of the UGC Act, framed the University Grants  

Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the  

appointment and career advancement of teachers in  

Universities  and  institutions  affiliated  to  it)  

Regulation, 2000.  The said Regulation does not,  

however, provide for the age of superannuation.

  8. On  23rd March,  2007,  the  Government,  in  its  

Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department  

of Higher Education, wrote to the Secretary of the  

Commission on the question of enhancement of the  

age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years for  

teaching  positions  in  Centrally  funded  

institutions,  in  higher  and  technical  education.  

In the said communication, it was mentioned that at  

the time of revision of pay scales of teachers in

Page 12

12

Universities and colleges, following the revision  

of pay scales of Central Government employees, on  

the  recommendations  of  the  Fifth  Central  Pay  

Commission, it had been provided inter alia in the  

Ministry’s letter dated 27th July, 1998 that the age  

of  superannuation  of  teachers  in  University  and  

schools  would  be  62  years  and,  thereafter,  no  

extension in service should be given.  However, the  

power to re-employ the superannuated teacher up to  

the  age  of  65  years  would  remain  open  to  a  

University or a college, according to the existing  

guidelines,  framed  by  the  Commission.   In  the  

letter, it was also indicated that the matter had  

been  reviewed  by  the  Central  Government,  in  the  

light  of  the  existing  shortage  in  teaching  

positions in the Centrally-funded institutions in  

higher and technical education under the Ministry  

and, in that context, it had been decided that the

Page 13

13

age  of  superannuation  of  all  persons  who  were  

holding  posts  as  on  15.3.2007,  in  any  of  the  

Centrally  funded  higher  and  technical  education  

under the Ministry, would stand increased from 62  

to 65 years.  It was also decided that persons  

holding such regular teaching positions, but had  

superannuated prior to 15.3.2007, on attaining the  

age of 62 years, but had not attained the age of 65  

years,  could  be  re-employed  against  vacant  

sanctioned teaching positions, till they attained  

the  age  of  65  years,  in  accordance  with  the  

guidelines framed by the Commission.  It was lastly  

indicated that the enhancement of retirement age  

and  the  provisions  for  re-employment  would  only  

apply  to  persons  in  teaching  positions  against  

posts  sanctioned  in  Centrally-funded  higher  and  

technical  education  institutions,  in  order  to  

overcome the shortage of teachers.

Page 14

14

  9. The most important development, at the relevant  

time, however, was the issuance of a letter by the  

Central  Government  in  its  Ministry  of  Human  

Resource  Development,  Department  of  Higher  

Education,  to  the  Secretary,  University  Grants  

Commission  on  31st December,  2008,  regarding  a  

scheme of revision of pay of teachers and other  

equivalent cadres in all the Central universities  

and colleges and Deemed Universities, following the  

revision of pay scales of the Central Government  

employees  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Sixth  

Central  Pay  Commission,  subject  to  all  the  

conditions  mentioned  in  the  letter  and  the  

Regulations.  The State Governments were given an  

option to adopt the scheme in its composite form.   

  10. While generally dealing with matters relating  

to  appointment  and  promotion,  it  was  reiterated

Page 15

15

that in order to meet the situation arising out of  

shortage of teachers in Universities and in other  

teaching  institutions  and  the  consequent  vacant  

positions,  age  of  superannuation  of  teachers  in  

Centrally-funded  institutions  had  already  been  

enhanced to 65 years.  It was mentioned in the said  

letter  that  after  taking  into  consideration  the  

recommendations made by the Commission based on the  

decisions taken at its meeting, held on 7th and 8th  

October, 2006, the Government of India had decided  

to revise the pay scales of teachers in the Central  

Universities.  It was further stipulated that the  

revision of pay scales of teachers would be subject  

to various provisions of the Scheme of revision of  

pay scales, as contained in the said letter and  

Regulations to be framed by the Commission in this  

behalf.  Paragraph 8 of the Scheme deals with other  

terms  and  conditions,  apart  from  those  already

Page 16

16

mentioned and Clause (p)(i) thereof, which deals  

with the applicability of the Scheme and relevant  

for our purpose is extracted hereinbelow:

“(p)  Applicability of the Scheme: (i)       This  Scheme  shall  be  applicable to teachers and other  equivalent cadres of Library and  Physical  Education  in  all  the  Central Universities and Colleges  there-under  and  the  Institutions  Deemed  to  be  Universities  whose  maintenance expenditure is met by  the UGC. The implementation of the  revised scales shall be subject to  the  acceptance  of  all  the  conditions  mentioned  in  this  letter as well as Regulations to  be  framed  by  the  UGC  in  this  behalf.  Universities  implementing  this  Scheme  shall  be  advised  by  the  UGC  to  amend  their  relevant  statutes  and  ordinances  in  line  with  the  UGC  Regulations  within  three  months  from  the  date  of  issue of this letter.”

11. Clause (p)(v) of the said paragraph, which is  

equally relevant, is also extracted hereinbelow:

Page 17

17

“(p)(v)  This  Scheme  may  be  extended to universities, Colleges  and  other  higher  educational  institutions  coming  under  the  purview  of  State  legislatures,  provided State Governments wish to  adopt  and  implement  the  Scheme  subject to the following terms and  conditions: (a) Financial assistance from the  Central  Government  to  State  Governments opting to revise pay  scales  of  teachers  and  other  equivalent cadre covered under the  Scheme  shall  be  limited  to  the  extent of 80% (eighty percent) of  the  additional  expenditure  involved in the implementation of  the revision. (b)  The  State  Government  opting  for revision of pay shall meet the  remaining 20% (twenty percent) of  the  additional  expenditure  from  its own sources. (c) Financial  assistance  referred  to in sub-clause (a) above shall  be  provided  for  the  period  from  1.01.2006 to 31.03.2010. (d) The  entire  liability  on  account of revision of pay scales  etc.  of  university  and  college  teachers  shall  be  taken  over  by  the  State  Government  opting  for

Page 18

18

revision of pay scales with effect  from 1.04.2010. (e) Financial assistance from the  Central  Government  shall  be  restricted  to  revision  of  pay  scales  in  respect  of  only  those  posts which were in existence and  had  been  filled  up  as  on  1.01.2006. (f) State Governments, taking into  consideration  other  local  conditions,  may  also  decide  in  their  discretion,  to  introduce  scales  of  pay  higher  than  those  mentioned in this Scheme, and may  give effect to the revised bands/  scales of pay from a date on or  after 1.01.2006; however, in such  cases,  the  details  of  modifications  proposed  shall  be  furnished  to  the  Central  Government and Central assistance  shall  be  restricted  to  the  Pay  Bands as approved by the Central  Government and not to any higher  scale of pay fixed by the State  Government(s). (g) Payment of Central assistance  for  implementing  this  Scheme  is  also subject to the condition that  the entire Scheme of revision of  pay scales, together with all the  conditions to be laid down by the  UGC  by  way  of  Regulations  and

Page 19

19

other  guidelines  shall  be  implemented  by  State  Governments  and  Universities  and  Colleges  coming under their jurisdiction as  a  composite  scheme  without  any  modification except in regard to  the  date  of  implementation  and  scales  of  pay  mentioned  herein  above.”

12. Paragraph 8(f) of the aforesaid Scheme deals  

with the age of superannuation, which has already  

been  dealt  with  hereinbefore.   In  substance,  it  

provides  that  in  order  to  meet  the  situation  

arising out of shortage of teachers and also to  

attract people to the teaching profession, it had  

been  decided  to  retain  the  services  of  teachers  

till the age of 65 years, as already intimated to  

all universities and colleges by the letter dated  

23.3.2007,  issued  by  the  Department  of  Higher  

Education,  in  the  Ministry  of  Human  Resource  

Development, Government of India.  

Page 20

20

13. Following the recommendations of the Sixth Pay  

Commission, the Bihar Legislature passed the Bihar  

State  Universities  (Amendment)  Act,  substituting  

Section  67  of  the  Bihar  State  Universities  Act,  

enhancing the age of superannuation to 62 years.  

Since  the  said  Amendment  also  has  a  definite  

bearing in the appeals filed by Prof. (Dr.) Jagdish  

Prasad  Sharma,  the  amended  provision,  namely,  

Section 67(a) is extracted hereinbelow:

“(a)Notwithstanding  anything  to  the contrary contained in any Act,  Rules,  Statutes,  Regulation  or  Ordinance, the date of retirement  of  a  teaching  employee  of  the  University or of a college shall  be the date on which he attains  the age of sixty two years.  The  date of retirement of a teaching  employee  will  be  the  same  which  would be decided by the University  grants Commission.  The date of retirement of non- teaching employee (other than the  inferior  servants)  shall  be  the

Page 21

21

date on which he attains the age  of sixty two years:  Provided  that  the  University  shall,  in  no  case,  extend  the  period of service of any of the  teaching or non-teaching employee  after he attains the age of sixty  two years as the case may be.  Provided further also that re- appointment  of  teachers  after  retirement  may  be  made  in  appropriate cases up to the age of  sixty  five  years  in  the  manner  laid down in the Statutes made in  this behalf in accordance with the  guidelines  of  the  University  Grants Commission.”

14. Similarly,  Section  64(a)  of  the  Patna  

University Act was also amended on similar basis.  

Since  the  decision  of  the  Ministry  of  Human  

Resource Development, as conveyed in its letter of  

23.3.2007,  was  not  being  implemented,  Writ  

Petitions, being CWJC Nos. 4823 and 5390 of 2008,  

were filed by some teachers seeking enhancement of  

the  age  of  superannuation  from  62  to  65  years,

Page 22

22

based upon the aforesaid decision of the Ministry  

of  Human  Resource  Development.   Both  the  Writ  

Petitions were dismissed by the High Court on the  

ground that there was no  conscious decision taken  by UGC with regard to teachers working in State  

Universities since the enhancement was confined to  

Centrally-funded Universities.

  15. On 3.10.2008, the Pay Review Committee set up  

by  the  Commission  submitted  its  Report  to  the  

Commission relating to the revision of pay scales  

of teachers, qualification for appointment, service  

and working conditions and promotional avenues of  

teachers  in  Universities  and  colleges,  and  at  

clause  5.4.2,  it  recommended  that  the  age  of  

superannuation throughout the country should be 65  

years, whether in a State or Central University, as  

also in a college or in a University.  In its 452nd  

meeting, the Commission took a  conscious decision

Page 23

23

and  recommended  the  Report  of  the  Pay  Review  

Committee for acceptance by the Central Government.  

Pursuant to the said decision and recommendation of  

the  Commission,  the  Ministry  of  Human  Resource  

Development published a Scheme on 31.12.2008, which  

has already been referred to hereinbefore.

16. As no action was taken even thereafter, the  

Appellants filed Writ Petition, being CWJC No. 2330  

of 2009, before the Patna High Court.  The said  

matter was heard along with several other similar  

Writ  Petitions,  wherein  claims  were  made  by  the  

Petitioners  under  the  amended  provisions  of  the  

Patna University Act and Bihar State Universities  

Act.

17. On 6.10.2009, the learned Single Judge allowed  

the  Writ  Petitions  and  held  that  the  State  

Government  had  no  discretion  as  they  were

Page 24

24

statutorily bound by the decision of the Commission  

to  enhance  the  age  of  superannuation.  Letters  

Patent Appeal No. 117 of 2010 and other connected  

LPAs were filed by the State of Bihar challenging  

the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge.  

On 18.5.2010, a Division Bench of the Patna High  

Court allowed LPA No. 117 of 2010, filed by the  

State of Bihar.  It is against the said judgment of  

the  Division  Bench  that  SLP(C)  Nos.  18766-18782  

were filed by the Appellants herein in June, 2010.  

On 30.6.2010, the Commission framed the Regulations  

of 2010.

18. This brings us to the substantial challenge, in  

these  appeals  and  connected  Writ  Petitions  and  

Transferred Cases, as has been set out in paragraph  

2 of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of  

the Patna High Court, which is, whether in view of  

the  decision  contained  in  the  letter  dated

Page 25

25

31.12.2008  issued  by  the  Department  of  Higher  

Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development,  

Government  of  India,  in  the  context  of  Section  

64(a) of the Patna University Act, 1976 and Section  

67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, the age  

of superannuation of teachers working in different  

Universities  and  colleges  of  Bihar  would  

automatically be enhanced to 65 years.  The focus  

is, therefore, on whether in view of the Scheme  

mentioned in the aforesaid letter of 31.12.2008,  

not  only  the  Central  Universities  and  colleges,  

which were bound by the UGC Regulations, but the  

different States and institutions situated therein  

would be bound to accept the Scheme, as set out in  

the  said  letter  of  31.12.2008.   As  has  been  

mentioned  hereinbefore,  the  Scheme  envisaged  in  

31.12.2008, in no uncertain terms, indicates that  

in case the State Governments opted to revise the

Page 26

26

pay scales of teachers and other equivalent cadres  

covered under the Scheme, financial assistance from  

the Central Government to such State Governments  

would be to the extent of 80% of the additional  

expenditure involved in the implementation of the  

revision.  The Scheme also indicates that the State  

Government which opted for revision of pay scales  

would  have  to  meet  the  remaining  20%  of  the  

additional expenditure from its own sources.  The  

third  consideration  is  that  such  financial  

assistance would be provided for the period from  

1.1.2006 to 31.3.2010, and that, thereafter, the  

entire  liability  on  account  of  revision  of  pay  

scales of the University and college teachers would  

have to be taken over by the State Government with  

effect  from  1.4.2010.   The  fourth  and  the  most  

important  condition  stipulated  by  the  Commission  

was  that  payment  of  Central  assistance  for

Page 27

27

implementing  the  Scheme  was  subject  to  the  

conditions that the entire Scheme of revision of  

pay scales, together with all the conditions to be  

laid down by the UGC, by way of Regulations and  

other guidelines, would have to be implemented by  

the State Government and Universities and Colleges  

coming  under  their  jurisdiction,  as  a  composite  scheme, emphasis supplied, without any modification  except in regard to the date of implementation and  

scales of pay mentioned hereinabove.  This entailed  

and  included  the  enhancement  of  age  of  such  

teachers to 65 years.  In other words, along with  

the enhancement of pay, of which 80% would be borne  

by  the  Commission,  the  other  condition  of  the  

Commission was that the age of the teachers would  

be enhanced to 65 years, and that the balance 20%  

of the expenditure would have to be borne by the  

State from its own resources till 31.3.2010, and,

Page 28

28

thereafter, the entire burden of expenditure would  

have to be borne by the State.

19. It  appears  that  the  States  of  West  Bengal,  

Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh  

implemented the Scheme without waiting for the UGC  

Regulations, which were framed only on 30.6.2010,  

whereas  the  said  Scheme  was  implemented  by  the  

aforesaid States long before the said date.  It is  

when the reimbursement of 80% of the expenses was  

sought for from the Central Government, that the  

problems arose, since in keeping with the composite  

scheme, the concerned States had not enhanced the  

age of superannuation simultaneously.  The Central  

Government took the stand that since the Scheme in  

its composite form had not been given effect to by  

the States concerned, the question of reimbursement  

of 80% of the expenses did not arise.  This is one

Page 29

29

of the core issues, which has arisen in these cases  

for decision.

20. The ripple effect of the stand taken by the  

Central Government was felt all over the country  

and,  accordingly,  matters  were  moved  before  

different High Courts which have ultimately come up  

to this Court for hearing on such common issues.

21. The lead case, however, is that of Prof. (Dr.)  

Jagdish Prasad Sharma, who has moved against the  

judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High  

Court  on  several  grounds,  including  the  grounds  

indicated hereinabove.  One of the other grounds  

taken as far as the Patna cases are concerned, is  

in regard to the interpretation of Section 64(a) of  

the Patna University Act, 1976, introduced by the  

Amendment Act of 2006, and Section 67(a) of the  

Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, introduced by

Page 30

30

the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2006,  

which  has  been  reproduced  hereinabove.   Learned  

counsel  for  the  Appellants  has  claimed  that  

although  in  the  first  part  of  the  two  amended  

provisions, it has been indicated that the date of  

retirement of a teaching employee of the University  

or college would be the date on which he attains  

the  age  of  62  years,  the  said  condition  was  

purportedly  watered  down  by  the  addition  of  the  

further condition that the date of retirement of a  

teaching employee would be the same, which would be  

decided  by  the  University  Grants  Commission  in  

future.   It  has  been  contended  that  on  a  

construction  of  the  aforesaid  provision,  it  is  

amply  clear  that  though  when  the  amendment  was  

effected it was the intention of the Legislature  

that the age of superannuation should be 62 years,  

no finality was attached to the same, since the

Page 31

31

final  decision  regarding  superannuation  lay  with  

any decision that might be taken by the University  

Grants Commission in future.  It has been contended  

that  since  a  decision  had  been  taken  by  the  

Ministry of Human Resource Development as far back  

on 23.3.2007 to enhance the age of superannuation  

from 62 to 65 years, which was also subsequently  

recommended by the Commission in its 452nd meeting,  

where a conscious decision was taken to implement  

the Report of the Pay Review Committee recommending  

the age of superannuation to 65 years throughout  

the  country  whether  in  a  State  or  central  

University  or  whether  in  a  college  or  in  a  

University,  it  was  incumbent  on  the  State  

Government to implement the said recommendation of  

the  University  Grants  Commission,  subsequently  

endorsed  by  the  Department  of  Higher  Education,

Page 32

32

Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government  

of India.

22. Appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Ajit Kumar  

Sinha,  learned  Senior  Advocate,  submitted  that  

Section 11 of the UGC Act provides that all orders  

and  decisions  of  the  Commission  are  to  be  

authenticated by the signature of the Chairman.  It  

was submitted that Section 12 of the UGC Act made  

further provision that it would be the general duty  

of the Commission to take, in consultation with the  

University  or  other  concerned  bodies,  all  such  

steps as it thought necessary for the promotion and  

coordination of University education and for the  

determination  and  maintenance  of  standards  of  

teaching,  examination  and  research  in  the  

Universities.  Mr. Sinha submitted that it would  

thus  be  apparent  that  the  Commission  could  take  

decisions which were independent of its power to

Page 33

33

frame  Regulations  under  Section  26  or  to  issue  

Notifications  under  Section  3  of  the  Act.   Mr.  

Sinha  submitted  that  the  State  of  Bihar  was,  

therefore,  bound  to  acknowledge  the  age  of  

superannuation  as  65  years  with  effect  from  

31.12.2010 for the Appellants.

23. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, who  

appeared  in  some  of  the  matters,  reiterated  the  

submissions made by Mr. Sinha and re-emphasized the  

fact that on 7.2.2011, the Government of Bihar had  

accepted the enhancement of age from 62 to 65 years  

for those who were in service on 30.6.2010.  Mr.  

Ranjit  Kumar  submitted  that  the  judgment  of  the  

Division Bench impugned in these proceedings does  

not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, did  

not warrant any interference.

Page 34

34

24. The next set of cases related to the State of  

Kerala  with  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned  Senior  

Advocate,  appearing  for  the  Appellants  in  Civil  

Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12990-12992 of  

2011.   Mr.  Venugopal’s  stand  was  different  from  

those of Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha and Mr. Ranjit Kumar,  

learned Senior Advocates, and supported the action  

of the Commission.  Mr. Venugopal submitted that  

the Kerala University Act, 1974, and the Mahatma  

Gandhi  University  Statutes,  1997,  inter  alia  

provided for the age of superannuation at 60 years.  

In  the  affiliated  colleges,  the  age  of  

superannuation  was  fixed  at  55  years.   Mr.  

Venugopal  submitted  that  the  stand  taken  by  the  

State of Kerala was a little different from the  

stand taken by the other States, since there were a  

large number of qualified and eligible persons who  

were unemployed and were waiting for employment,

Page 35

35

who would ultimately fall prey to frustration if  

the services of those who had superannuated at the  

age  of  62  years  were  to  be  continued,  thereby  

depriving  eligible  candidates  waiting  to  be  

employed.   In  such  circumstances,  the  State  of  

Kerala was not interested in increasing the age of  

superannuation  from  62  years  to  65  years.  

Referring to the letter of the Ministry of Human  

Resource  Development,  Government  of  India,  dated  

31.12.2008,  Mr.  Venugopal  contended  that  in  all  

Centrally-funded  institutions  a  general  direction  

had been given that the age of superannuation would  

be 65 years in place of 62 years.

25. Mr.  Venugopal  further  urged  that  the  

Regulations made by the Commission were applicable  

to Centrally-funded institutions and also included  

by  reference  the  entirety  of  the  Scheme  of  

31.12.2008, as part of the Regulations and made it

Page 36

36

applicable to State institutions.  Mr. Venugopal  

urged  that  the  UGC  Regulations  being  Central  

legislation under Entry 66 List I of the Seventh  

Schedule  to  the  Constitution,  they  would  have  

primacy over the executive and State laws and the  

Government Order dated 10.12.2010 was liable to be  

struck down.

  26. While referring to the scope of Entry 66, List  

I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, Mr.  

Venugopal referred to the decision of this Court in  

the University of Delhi Vs. Raj Singh [(1994) Suppl  

3  SCC  516],  wherein  it  was  held  that  the  

Regulations  of  the  Commission  in  the  said  case  

would not be binding on the University of Delhi  

being recommendatory and did not impinge upon the  

University’s  power  to  select  its  teachers.  

However, if the University chose not to accept the

Page 37

37

UGC Regulations, it would lose its grant from the  

UGC.

27. During  the  course  of  his  submissions,  Mr.  

Venugopal  referred  to  the  order  issued  by  the  

Government of Kerala in the Higher Education (C)  

Department on 10.12.2010 for implementation of the  

UGC Regulations 2010 on minimum qualifications for  

appointment of teachers, other academic staff in  

Universities  and  colleges  and  measures  for  the  

maintenance of standards in higher education.  The  

Government Order further provided that the matter  

had been examined in detail and the Government was,  

therefore, pleased to approve and to implement the  

Regulations as such.  The Regulations, therefore,  

were to come into force from 18.9.2010 on the date  

of  their  publication  in  the  Government  of  India  

Gazette.   All  the  Universities  were  directed  to  

incorporate the UGC Regulations in their Statutes

Page 38

38

and Regulations, within one month from the date of  

the Order.  Mr. Venugopal joined issue with the  

contents of paragraph 6 of the said Order, which  

provides that where there were any provisions in  

the Regulations inconsistent with the provisions in  

the Government Order, read as the first paper, the  

said Government Order would override the provisions  

in  the  Regulations  to  the  extent  of  such  

inconsistency.   Mr.  Venugopal  submitted  that  

executive directions cannot override the statutory  

provisions  and  it  was  the  statutory  provisions  

which would prevail over such executive directions.  

Consequently, the UGC Regulations would, in these  

cases,  prevail  over  the  Orders  of  the  Executive  

government.   In  this  connection,  Mr.  Venugopal  

referred to the decision of this Court in  Paluru  

Ramkrishnaiah Vs.  Union  of  India [(1989)  2  SCC  

541], wherein relying on two earlier decisions of

Page 39

39

this Court in  B.N. Nagarajan Vs.  State of Mysore  

[(1966) 3 SCR 682] and Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of  

Rajasthan [(1968) 1 SCR 111], a Constitution Bench  

of this Court in  Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar Vs.  

State of Maharashtra [(1974) 1 SCC 317], held that  

in  the  absence  of  legislative  Rules  it  was  

competent  for  the  State  Government  to  take  a  

decision  in  the  exercise  of  its  executive  power  

under Article 162 of the Constitution.  Therefore,  

an executive instruction could make provision only  

for a matter which was not covered by the Rules and  

such executive instructions could not override any  

of the provisions of the Rules.  Accordingly, the  

learned counsel submitted that the Government Order  

dated 10.12.2010 was liable to be struck down.

28. Mr. Venugopal also referred to the decision of  

this Court in the case of the Gujarat University,  

Ahmedabad Vs.  Krishna  Ranganath  Mudholkar [1963

Page 40

40

Suppl  1  SCR  112],  wherein  it  was  inter  alia  

observed as follows:

“The  State  has  the  power  to  prescribe the syllabi and courses  of study in the institutions named  in  Entry  66  (but  not  falling  within entries 63 to 65) and as an  incident thereof it has the power  to  indicate  the  medium  in  which  instruction  should  be  imparted.  But  the  Union  Parliament  has  an  overriding  legislative  power  to  ensure  that  the  syllabi  and  courses  of  study  prescribed  and  the medium selected do not impair  standards of education or render  the  co-ordination  of  such  standards either on an All India  or other basis impossible or even  difficult. Thus, though the powers  of the Union and of the State are  in the Exclusive Lists, a degree  of overlapping is inevitable. It  is not possible to lay down any  general test which would afford a  solution for every question which  might arise on this head. On the'  one hand, it is certainly within  the  province  of  the  State  Legislature  to  prescribe  syllabi  and  courses  of  study  and,  of  course, to indicate the medium or  media of instruction. On the other  hand, it is also within the power

Page 41

41

of  the  Union  to  legislate  in  respect of media of instruction so  as  to  ensure  co-ordination  and  determination  of  standards,  that  is  to  ensure  maintenance  or  improvement of standards. The fact  that the Union has not legislated,  or refrained from legislating to  the full extent of its powers does  not  invest  the  State  with  the  power to legislate in respect of a  matter  assigned  by  the  Constitution to the Union. It does  not,  however,  follow  that  even  within  the  permitted  relative  fields  there  might  not  be  legislative  provisions  in  enactments made each in pursuance  of separate exclusive and distinct  powers  which  may  conflict.  Then  would  arise  the  question  of  repugnancy  and  paramountcy  which  may  have  to  be  resolved  on  the  application  of  the  "doctrine  of  pith  and  substance"  of  the  impugned  enactment.  The  validity  of  the  State  legislation  on  University  education  and  as  regards the education in technical  and  scientific  institutions  not  falling within Entry 64 of List I  would  have  to  be  judged  having  regard to whether it impinges on  the field reserved for the Union  under  Entry  66.  In  other  words,  the validity of State legislation

Page 42

42

would  depend  upon  whether  it  prejudicially  affects  co- ordination  and  determination  of  standards,  but  not  upon  the  existence of some definite Union  legislation  directed  to  achieve  that  purpose.  If  there  be  Union  legislation  in  respect  of  co- ordination  and  determination  of  standards,  that  would  have  paramountcy over the State law by  virtue of the first part of Art.  254(1); even if that power be not  exercised by the Union Parliament  the  relevant  legislative  entries  being  in  the  exclusive  lists,  a  State law trenching upon the Union  field would still be invalid.”  

Mr.  Venugopal,  therefore,  contended  that  the  

UGC  Regulations  would  have  an  overriding  effect  

over the Government Order dated 10.12.2010 and, in  

any  event,  the  U.G.C.  could  not  abdicate  its  

authority regarding higher education to the States.

29. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants in  

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10765-69  

of 2011 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of

Page 43

43

other  Appellants,  in  relation  to  the  matters  

relating  to  the  State  of  Kerala,  adopted  Mr.  

Venugopal’s submissions and it was pointed out by  

Mrs.  V.P.  Seemanthini  that  there  was  a  marked  

difference between the 2000 Regulations framed by  

the Commission and the subsequent Regulations of  

2010.  It was submitted by her that while the 2000  

Regulations  did  not  provide  for  any  age  of  

superannuation, in the 2010 Regulations, there is a  

mandate to the State Government to follow the same.

  30. However, appearing for the Appellants in Civil  

Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 23275 of 2010, Dr.  

K.P. Kylasanatha Pillay, learned Senior Advocate,  

took a different stand from that of Mr. Venugopal.  

He  pointed  out  that  the  Appellants  were  all  

Selection  Grade  Lecturers  and  Readers  of  Sree  

Narayana  College,  Kollam,  an  aided  institution  

situated in the State of Kerala.  Referring to the

Page 44

44

Scheme formulated by the Central Government, which  

also  included  the  question  relating  to  age  of  

superannuation, Dr. Pillay reiterated that in order  

to  meet  a  situation  arising  out  of  shortage  of  

teachers  in  Universities  and  other  teaching  

institutions,  the  age  of  superannuation  for  

teachers  in  Central  educational  institutions  had  

already  been  enhanced  to  65  years.   Dr.  Pillay  

urged that the benefits of the package scheme which  

was implemented with effect from 1.1.2006, relating  

to  enhancement  of  age  of  superannuation  to  65  

years,  should  also  be  made  available  to  the  

Appellants.  Dr. Pillay submitted that so long as  

the  Appellants  had  been  excluded  from  the  Pay  

Revision of the State Government, as governed by  

the  UGC  Scheme,  they  had  been  placed  in  a  

disadvantageous position.

Page 45

45

31. Appearing for the State of Kerala, Ms. Bina  

Madhavan,  learned  Advocate,  contended  that  under  

Article  309  of  the  Constitution,  the  State  

Government is empowered to frame its own Rules and  

Regulations in regard to service conditions of its  

employees.  Furthermore, Section 2 of the Kerala  

Public Service Commission Act, 1968, empowers the  

State Government to make Rules either prospectively  

or retrospectively to regulate the recruitment and  

conditions of service for persons appointed to the  

Public Services and posts in connection with the  

affairs  of  the  State  of  Kerala.   Ms.  Madhavan  

submitted  that  under  the  Kerala  Service  Rules,  

1958,  enacted  by  the  State  Government  under  the  

proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the age  

of  retirement  of  teachers  in  colleges  has  been  

fixed to be 55 years.  Subsequently, however, by  

G.O.P. No.170/12/Fin. dated 22.3.2012, the age of

Page 46

46

compulsory retirement was enhanced to 56 years and  

the age of superannuation has been enhanced to 60  

years.  Ms. Madhavan urged that having regard to  

the UGC Regulations dated 30.6.2010, a decision was  

taken to revise the scales of pay and other service  

conditions, including the age of superannuation in  

Central  Universities  and  other  institutions  

maintained  and  funded  by  the  University  Grants  

Commission,  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  

decision of the Central Government.  However, the  

revised scales of pay and age of superannuation, as  

provided under paragraph 2.1.10 and under paragraph  

2.3.1,  will  also  be  extended  to  Universities,  

colleges and other higher educational institutions  

coming under the purview of the State legislature  

and maintained by the State Governments, subject to  

the implementation of the Scheme as a composite one  

as contemplated in the Regulations.

Page 47

47

32. Ms.  Madhavan  contended  that  the  State  

Governments were not under any compulsion to adopt  

the UGC Scheme, but could do so if they wanted to.  

Ms. Madhavan emphasized that neither the pay scales  

nor  the  age  of  superannuation  stood  revived  

automatically, without the Scheme being accepted by  

the State Government.  Ms. Madhavan also urged that  

Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act,  

1956,  which  empowers  the  Commission  to  make  

Regulations, does not authorize the Commission to  

make Regulations in regard to service conditions of  

teaching staff in the Universities, including the  

age of retirement.  According to learned counsel,  

the role of the UGC is only to prescribe academic  

standards, qualifications required for the teaching  

staff, facilities required in a higher education  

institutions,  etc.  Hence,  it  can  in  no  

circumstances  be  contended  that  the  rule  making

Page 48

48

power of the Commission empowered it to prescribe  

conditions  of  service  in  relation  to  State  

Government employees, which is the prerogative of  

the State Government.   

33.  Ms. Madhavan also urged that in its affidavit  

filed in SLP (C) No.10783 of 2011, the Commission  

had clearly stated that it would be open to the  

State Government or other competent authority to  

adopt the decision or to take any decision as it  

considered  appropriate  in  respect  of  the  

superannuation  of  the  teachers  in  higher  and  

technical  education  institutions  under  their  

purview,  with  the  approval  of  the  appropriate  

competent authority.  As a result, there was no  

repugnancy between the Regulations framed by the  

Commission  and  the  Rules  framed  by  the  State  

Government.  Referring to Section 20 of the UGC  

Act, Ms. Madhavan contended that the same provided

Page 49

49

that the Commission, in discharge of its functions  

under the Act, shall be guided by such directions  

on  questions  of  policy  relating  to  national  

services, as may be given to it by the Central  

Government  and  if  any  dispute  arose  between  the  

Central Government and the Commission as to whether  

a question is or not a question of policy relating  

to  national  policy,  the  decision  of  the  Central  

Government shall be final.  Ms. Madhavan also urged  

that the Central Government had by its letter dated  

14th August, 2012, clarified the position and had  

made it clear that the question of enhancement of  

the  age  of  retirement  is  exclusively  within  the  

domain  of  the  policy-making  powers  of  the  State  

Governments and that the condition of enhancement  

of  the  age  of  superannuation  to  65  years,  as  

mentioned  in  the  Ministry’s  letter  dated  

31.12.2008,  may  be  treated  as  withdrawn  for  the

Page 50

50

purpose  of  seeking  reimbursement  of  the  Central  

share of arrears to be paid to the State University  

and College teachers. According to Ms. Madhavan,  

the Central Government had itself clarified that  

the Scheme is not a composite one and the word  

‘composite’ is with regard to financial assistance  

provided  by  the  Central  Government  and  was  not  

connected with the age of superannuation which was  

incidental to the Scheme.    

34. The  other  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

different Universities and educational institutions  

generally adopted Mr. Venugopal’s submissions, but  

while doing so, added one or two points of their  

own.   

35. Mr. S.R. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, who  

appeared for the Appellants in Civil Appeal arising  

out of SLP (C) No.16523 of 2011, reiterated Mr.

Page 51

51

Venugopal’s submissions relating to Entry 66 List I  

and Entry 25 in List III and urged that the powers  

under Entry 66 List I were vested in the Central  

Government and could not be sub-delegated to the  

States under Entry 25 in List III, which, in any  

event,  was  not  permissible  in  law.   Mr.  Singh  

contended  that  the  same  would  be  evident  on  a  

reading of Section 12(j) and Section 27 of the UGC  

Act, 1956, which made the Commission the repository  

of  powers  for  advancing  the  cause  of  higher  

education in India.

36.  Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar, learned Advocate, who  

appeared for the University in Civil Appeal arising  

out  of  SLP(C)  No.16523  of  2011  and  other  batch  

matters,  urged  that  the  University  Statutes  

provided 62 years as the age of superannuation and  

there  was  no  right  available  to  the  Appellants  

which could be enforced by a writ of mandamus.  Mr.

Page 52

52

Chandra Shekhar also submitted that the Commission  

had no power to enhance the age of superannuation  

as a condition of service.  

37.  Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate,  

who appeared in SLP(C)Nos.9198-9221/2011 and other  

matters relating to the State of Punjab and the  

Union Territory of Chandigarh, while adopting Mr.  

Venugopal’s  submissions  regarding  the  binding  

nature  of  the  UGC  Regulations,  relied  upon  the  

Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the  

case of  Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs.  State of M.P.  

[(1999) 7 SCC 120], wherein it was observed that  

when there was an existing Central legislation, the  

same would be binding in the absence of any other  

legislation by the States.  Mr. Patwalia also urged  

that the Scheme was a composite scheme and ought to  

have been accepted in its totality and despite the  

fact  that  the  State  Government  had  accepted  the

Page 53

53

grant of 80% of the expenses, which was part of the  

composite scheme, it ought to have also accepted  

the  other  part  of  the  Scheme  relating  to  

enhancement of the age of teachers in the different  

Universities in Punjab, from 62 to 65 years.  By  

not doing so, the State had caused severe prejudice  

to  the  teachers  who  would  have  otherwise  been  

entitled to retire at the age of 65 years and not  

62 years.  Mr. Patwalia submitted a copy of the  

Report of the Task Force on Faculty Shortage and  

Design of Performance Appraisal System published by  

the  Ministry  of  Human  Resource  Development,  

Government of India, in July, 2011, and pointed out  

that  generally  across  the  country  on  an  average  

about 35% of the posts of teachers in the different  

Universities and Colleges were lying vacant, which  

was one of the reasons for the deterioration of  

standards  of  education  across  the  board.   Mr.

Page 54

54

Patwalia urged that the aforesaid vacancies would  

indicate  that  there  was  an  urgent  need  for  

appointment of teachers in the different schools  

and  colleges  across  the  country,  including  the  

State of Punjab.

38.  The same sentiments were expressed by Dr. Aman  

Hingorani,  learned  Advocate  appearing  in  Civil  

Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.7392 of 2011.  Dr.  

Hingorani  reiterated  Mr.  Patwalia’s  submissions  

that  the  composite  scheme  as  offered  by  the  

University Grants Commission could not be split in  

two by the States, and independent of the control  

of the Central Government, the College in question  

has to abide by the UGC Regulations as the same was  

funded by the Commission. Dr. Hingorani also urged  

that the Appellant, Susan Anand, was made to retire  

at  the  age  of  60  while  the  UGC  Notification  

provided that the age of superannuation would be 62

Page 55

55

years.  Dr. Hingorani urged that as was held by  

this Court in Pavai Ammal Vaiyapuri Education Trust  

Vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 259],  

since the institution accepted the UGC Regulations,  

it came under its discipline, which fact had not  

been taken into consideration in  B. Bharat Kumar &  

Ors. Vs  Osmania University & Ors. [(2007) 11 SCC  

58].   Dr.  Hingorani  also  urged  that  though  the  

Appellant’s SLP was dismissed and the Appellant had  

attained  the  age  of  superannuation,  under  the  

orders of the High Court, she was allowed to rejoin  

her duties in the college. It was submitted that  

her case was required to be treated separately from  

the others on account of the special facts involved  

and that having continued in service by virtue of  

the  Court’s  orders,  she  was  entitled  to  the  

benefits of any order that may be passed in favour

Page 56

56

of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 62  

to 65 years.   

39. Appearing for the State of Haryana, Dr. Monika  

Gosain, learned Advocate, restated what had been  

stated by the other learned counsel that the State  

of Haryana was not bound by the UGC scheme as it  

had  not  accepted  the  “composite  scheme”  of  the  

Commission. Supplementing Dr. Gosain’s submissions,  

Mr.  P.S.  Patwalia,  learned  Senior  Advocate,  

appearing for the State of Punjab, submitted that  

the letter from the Government of India to all the  

States  made  it  clear  that  unless  the  composite  

scheme  as  offered  by  the  UGC  was  accepted,  the  

payment  of  money  under  the  Scheme  would  not  be  

forthcoming.  It was, however, submitted that in  

some  cases,  the  Government  of  Haryana  had  

voluntarily enhanced the age of superannuation to

Page 57

57

65 years and notified to the colleges recognized  

under Section 2(f).   

40. As  far  as  the  Civil  Appeal  arising  out  of  

SLP(C)No.1631 of 2012 and four connected matters  

are  concerned,  Mr.  C.S.N.  Mohan  Rao,  learned  

Advocate, appearing for the Appellants, adopted the  

submissions  made  by  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal  and  

reiterated  the  position  that  despite  having  

accepted the composite package, the State had not  

accepted  the  enhancement  of  age  from  62  to  65  

years, causing severe prejudice to the Appellants  

and others similarly situated.

41. Similarly,  Ms.  Aishwarya  Bhati,  learned  

Advocate,  appearing  for  the  Appellants  in  Civil  

Appeals  arising  out  of  SLP(C)  Nos.6915-6923  of  

2012, adopted Mr. Venugopal’s submissions and also  

relied on the decision in the case of  B. Bharat

Page 58

58

Kumar (supra). Ms. Bhati submitted that on behalf  

of the State of Rajasthan a letter had been written  

to the Registrar of all the Universities in the  

State of Rajasthan, indicating that considering the  

huge problem of unemployment of youth in the State,  

the State had decided not to increase the age of  

superannuation of teachers beyond 60 years.  Ms.  

Bhati  referred  to  the  Report  of  the  Chaddha  

Committee,  wherein  the  aforesaid  stand  had  been  

refuted and the said Committee recommended that the  

age  of  superannuation  of  teachers  should  be  65  

years on a uniform basis throughout the country,  

whether working in a State or Central University or  

College. Learned counsel urged that the benefits  

which had been conferred by the UGC Regulations,  

could  not  be  taken  away  by  a  subsequent  

legislation.  In the other cases relating to the  

State of Rajasthan, the Petitioner adopted not only

Page 59

59

Mr. Venugopal’s submissions, but also those made by  

Ms. Bhati.   

42. Learned  counsel  appearing  in  Civil  Appeals  

arising out of SLP(C) Nos.18218-18226 of 2012 and  

21396  of  2012  from  Odisha,  also  adopted  the  

submissions  made  by  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal  and  

submitted that the UGC scheme having been conceived  

under Entry 66, List I of the Seventh Schedule to  

the Constitution, would have an overriding effect  

over the State legislation.   

43. Mr.  Dinesh  Dwivedi,  learned  Senior  Advocate,  

who appeared for the State of Uttrakhand, submitted  

that  the  conditions  of  service  in  State  

universities  could  not  be  controlled  by  the  

University Grants Commission and even on receipt of  

80% of the expenses to be incurred by the Colleges  

the  State’s  powers  under  the  statutes  were  not

Page 60

60

taken away.  Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi submitted in detail  

with regard to the ramifications of Entry 66 List I  

as  also  Entry  11  of  List  II  prior  to  the  42nd  

Amendment and its substitution by way of Entry 25  

in List III.  The ultimate result of Mr. Dwivedi's  

submission is that the statute does not use two  

different words to denote the same thing.  Besides  

the  language  in  the  Constitution  has  to  be  

understood  in  a  common  sense  way  and  in  common  

parlance, as was observed in the case of Synthetic  

and Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.  

[(1990) 1 SCC 109].  Learned counsel also submitted  

that  in  the  present  case,  when  the  dominant  

Legislature  has  legislated,  any  incidental  

encroachment  has  to  give  way.   Moreover,  no  

incidental or ancillary powers could be read into  

Entry  66  as  Entry  32  was  already  occupying  the  

filed.  Mr.  Dwivedi  submitted  that  the  2000

Page 61

61

Regulations framed by the UGC were not applicable  

to  the  Pant  Nagar  University,  since  being  an  

agricultural institution, the standards and norms  

of  the  Indian  Council  of  Agricultural  Research  

would apply.  Mr. Dwivedi lastly contended that in  

regard to the provisions of Secions 12, 14, 25 and  

26 of the UGC Act, the said provisions could not be  

read so widely as to enable the Commission to ride  

rough  shod  over  the  State  laws.   Mr.  Dwivedi  

submitted that the regulations, in so far as they  

seek to prescribe conditions of service, including  

age  of  retirement,  are  illegal  and  beyond  the  

legislative powers of the Union or the Commission,  

in the event they relate to the teachers and staff  

of the State university and institutions.  The 2010  

Regulations  as  framed  by  the  UGC  could  not,  

therefore, be enforced on unwilling States in view  

of the federal structure of our Constitution.     

Page 62

62

44. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counselm  

who appeared for the Babajan Badesab Nandyal and  

others, the Appellants in Civil Appeals arising out  

of SLP(C) Nos.32748-762 of 2011, submitted that the  

impugned order was contrary to the law as laid down  

by this Court in the case of  Annamalai University  

Vs.  Secretary  to  Govt.  Information  and  Tourism  

Department  &  Ors.[(2009)  4  SCC  590]  and  the  

University of Delhi Vs. Raj Singh [1994 Supp. 3 SCC  

516],  in  which  this  Court  had  held  that  the  

provisions of the UGC Act were binding on all the  

Universities and the Regulations framed by the UGC  

in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-

section  (1)  of  Section  26  which  were  of  wide  

amplitude and were mandatory in nature.  He also  

urged that the Division Bench of the High Court had  

failed  to  notice  that  the  Government  of  India  

letter  dated  31.12.2008  had  been  included  as

Page 63

63

'Appendix-I' to the UGC Regulations, 2010, which  

made the Scheme provided therein as statutory and  

binding.  It was also urged that the High Court had  

not  really  considered  the  provisions  of  Section  

26(g)  of  the  above  Act  which  empowered  the  

Commission to regulate the maintenance of standards  

and  the  coordination  of  work  or  facilities  in  

Universities.  Learned counsel submitted that all  

factors  relevant  for  the  purpose  of  nourishing,  

sustaining  and  enhancing  the  quality  of  human  

resource  have  been  duly  taken  note  of  by  the  

Commission.  Mr. Venkataramani submitted that the  

question  of  fixing  the  date  of  retirement  of  a  

teacher  were  restricted  within  the  framework  of  

University legislation, since the age of retirement  

was  intrinsically  related  to  establishment  and  

realization  of  higher  standard  and  quality  of  

imparting  eduction  and  could  not  be  confined  to

Page 64

64

parochial aspirations.  Mr. Venkataramani submitted  

that the UGC Regulations, 2010, are binding on the  

State Governments and the Universities to enhance  

the age of superannuation of teachers to 65 years.  

Relying  on  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  the  

Annamalai  University case  (supra),  Mr.  

Venkataramani urged that the provisions of the UGC  

Act  were  binding  on  all  Universities,  whether  

conventional or open.  It's powers are very broad  

and the Regulations framed by it under Section 26  

were  of  wide  amplitude  and  even  as  subordinate  

legislation they became part of the UGC Act having  

been validly made.  Learned counsel also referred  

to the decision of this Court in  Prem Chand Jain  

Vs.  R.K. Chhabra [(1984) 2 SCC 302], wherein this  

Court held that it was well settled that entries  

incorporated in the Lists covered by Schedule Seven

Page 65

65

are  not  powers  of  legislation,  but  “field”  of  

legislation.  

45. In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.36126  

of 2011, Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, learned Advocate  

appearing for the State of Punjab, referred to the  

letter  dated  23.3.2007  written  on  behalf  of  the  

Government  of  India  to  the  Commission  regarding  

enhancement of the age of the teachers from 62 to  

65  years  and  urged  that  the  said  Scheme  was  

voluntary and not binding on the State and that  

when  a  sufficient  number  of  teachers  were  

available, it would be counterproductive to insist  

that the State should be compelled to accept the  

UGC’s option in its totality when the same has been  

left  to  the  discretion  of  the  State  by  the  

Regulations themselves.  Mr. Chhabra urged that the  

conditions of service of teachers in a State were  

completely within the jurisdiction of the State and

Page 66

66

such jurisdiction could not be overridden by the  

UGC Regulations, without the consent of the State.  

46. In reply to the submissions made on behalf of  

the Petitioners and the Appellants in these cases,  

Mr.  Rakesh  Dwivedi,  learned  Senior  Advocate,  

appearing  for  the  UGC,  submitted  that  after  the  

letter  written  by  the  Central  Government  on  

27.7.1998,  informing  the  States  regarding  the  

revision  of  pay  scales  and  the  provision  of  

financial assistance to the extent of 80% of the  

additional expenditure for the period 1.1.1996 to  

31.3.2000,  whereafter  the  entire  liability  would  

have to be taken over by the State Governments, it  

was upto the State Governments to take recourse to  

the  scheme  as  framed.   By  another  letter  dated  

27.7.1998, the UGC was informed that the Central  

Government had revised the pay scales of teachers  

in the Central Universities on the recommendations

Page 67

67

of UGC that the scheme was of a composite nature  

and all the conditions of the scheme would have to  

be fulfilled if the States were to avail of the  

offer of financial assistance to the extent of 80%  

of  the  additional  expenditure  for  the  period  

indicated  hereinabove.   However,  although,  the  

State  of  Kerala  had  issued  an  order  dated  

21.12.1999, accepting the revised pay scales, it  

continued to adopt the existing Rules of the State  

Government, wherein the age of retirement remained  

55 years. Mr. Dwivedi reiterated that following the  

recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission,  

the  Central  Government  had,  by  its  order  dated  

23.3.2007,  revised  the  age  of  superannuation  of  

teachers  to  65  years  and  even  reemployment  was  

permitted upto the age of 70 years.  The only catch  

was  that  such  change  would  apply  to  centrally-

funded  higher  and  technical  educational

Page 68

68

institutions  coming  under  the  purview  of  the  

Ministry  of  Human  Resource  Development  and  the  

Notification would be issued by the Commission.

47. While  reiterating  the  submissions  made  on  

behalf  of  the  Petitioners  relating  to  the  UGC  

Regulations, 2010 and Clause 2.1 of the Annexures  

thereto, Mr. Dwivedi urged that the provisions of  

the UGC Act, particularly Section 12 thereof, are  

not confined to coordination and determination of  

standards in institutions for higher education and  

research  but  that  the  powers  vested  in  the  

Commission contemplated a larger role in regard to  

the  promotion  of  university  education.   It  was  

further urged that the Commission was empowered to  

give  grants,  as  it  might  deem  necessary  or  

appropriate,  for  the  development  of  Universities  

and  could  also  recommend  measures  necessary  for  

their improvement.  Mr. Dwivedi contended that the

Page 69

69

UGC Act is not entirely confined to Entry 66, List  

I, but it was also entitled to act under Entry 25  

of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to  

the  Constitution.   Mr.  Dwivedi  urged  that  since  

Parliament was competent to legislate both in terms  

of Entry 66, List I and Entry 25, List III, it  

could invoke both the fields of legislation.  Mr.  

Dwivedi  submitted  that  a  competent  legislature  

could  draw  sustenance  from  more  than  one  entry  

while legislating.  However, the aforesaid question  

was  not  required  to  be  gone  into  since  the  

Commission had made an offer in the Scheme, which  

was left to the State to adopt or not to adopt.  

Mr. Dwivedi further submitted that with regard to  

the  Concurrent  field,  there  was  no  compulsion  

either on the Parliament or the authority created  

under Central Statutes to exhaustively legislate or  

to exercise the enabling power with regard to the

Page 70

70

Concurrent  field.  It  would  be  open  to  the  

Parliament or the Commission either to enforce a  

particular scheme in the State or leave it open for  

them to adopt the scheme through their laws and  

executive  orders.  In  such  cases,  the  State  

Governments and State Legislatures exercise plenary  

powers  to  decide  whether  the  Scheme  was  to  be  

adopted or not.  Mr. Dwivedi submitted that it is  

also settled law that unless the enabling power is  

completely expanded, the legislative field in the  

Concurrent List remains available to the States.

48. Mr.  Dwivedi  further  urged  that  different  

legislations by different States are inherent in a  

federal exercise of power.  The differences arising  

as a result of federal distribution of power by the  

Constitution and exercise of such power by States,  

cannot be a ground to allege discrimination.  As  

was held in S.R. Bommai Vs. Union of India [(1994)

Page 71

71

3 SCC 1], federalism is a basic feature of the  

Constitution.  In the present case, the UGC Act and  

the  Regulations  of  2010  and  the  Scheme  of  the  

Central Government have been made applicable to all  

the States uniformly. In fact, no age of retirement  

has also been fixed by the Commission.  Even for  

Central  Universities,  the  pay  scales  have  been  

revised by the Central Government and the age of  

superannuation has been revised to 65 years by the  

said Government.  The Scheme was also finalized by  

the Central Government and it was also the decision  

of  the  Central  Government  that  the  State  should  

take their own decisions as to whether the Scheme  

prepared  by  it  should  be  adopted.   Mr.  Dwivedi  

reiterated that the UGC Regulations of 2010 have  

notified the Scheme of the Central Government and  

it has been left to the discretion of the State  

Governments to adopt or not to adopt the same for

Page 72

72

its Universities, colleges and other institutions.  

The only challenge which had occurred is the order  

of the Central Government, vide its letter dated  

14.8.2012,  in  its  Ministry  of  Human  Resource  

Development,  which  delinked  the  financial  

assistance  from  the  requirement  to  adopt  the  

Central  Scheme.   The  Central  Government  took  a  

decision  that  the  discretion  of  the  State  

Government should not be fettered by the extension  

of  the  financial  incentive.   Accordingly,  any  

difference  which  might  arise  on  account  of  any  

decision  of  the  State  Government  would  be  on  

account of the federal scheme of the Constitution  

and not on account of any decision either of the  

Central Government or the Commission.   

49. Mr.  Dwivedi  submitted  that  the  cases  relied  

upon  by  the  Petitioners  and  Appellants  were  all  

based on geographical discrimination, which had no

Page 73

73

bearing with the facts of these cases and neither  

the UGC Act nor the Regulations of 2010, nor the  

Scheme of the Central Government, suffers from any  

such infirmity.  In this regard, Mr. Dwivedi also  

placed reliance on the decision of this Court in  

T.P. George Vs State of Kerala [1992 Supp (3) SCC  

191] and in the All India Sainik Schools Employees’  

Association Vs. Defence Minister-cum-Chairman Board  

of  Governors,  Sainik  Schools  Society,  New  Delhi  

[1989 Supp 1 SCC 205].  Learned counsel submitted  

that each State has its own sovereign plenary power  

with respect to its territory and the laws of one  

State could not be held to be discriminatory with  

reference  to  laws  of  another  State.   In  this  

regard, Mr. Dwivedi referred to and relied upon the  

decision  of  this  Court  in  Javed Vs.  State  of  

Haryana [(2003)  8  SCC  369],  where  the  said

Page 74

74

principle  was  considered  and  the  application  of  

Article 14 of the Constitution was negated.   

50. Mr. Dwivedi concluded on the note that the age  

of retirement has varied from State to State in  

respect of public employment in State services and  

this Court has always upheld the power of the State  

to fix the age of superannuation in the light of  

conditions  prevalent  in  the  States  and  the  

provision of jobs to youth has been upheld to be a  

valid consideration, as in the State of Kerala.  

51. On behalf of Govind Ballabh Pant University in  

SLP(C) No.8153 of 2012, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned  

Senior Advocate, submitted that Section 28(r) of  

the UGC Act permits the University to frame Rules  

with  regard  to  service  conditions  of  its  staff,  

including the Rules for retirement.  Apart from the  

above,  it  was  also  pointed  out  that  the  grants

Page 75

75

which are received by the University are not from  

the  UGC,  but  from  the  Indian  Council  of  

Agricultural Research (ICAR).  

52.  Lastly,  coming  to  the  submissions  made  on  

behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the State of  

U.P., on behalf of both the States it was sought to  

be urged that the UGC Regulations could not control  

the  power  of  the  State  Governments  and/or  the  

service conditions of its employees as the same are  

to  be  exclusively  decided  by  the  Union  or  the  

State,  as  provided  in  Article  309  of  the  

Constitution.  It was submitted that it had also  

been held in the  Osmania University case (supra)  

that the fixation of the age of superannuation by  

the  State  Government  is  well  within  its  

jurisdiction and neither the Scheme of the Central  

Government nor the UGC Regulations have any binding  

effect.

Page 76

76

53. Though,  at  first  blush,  the  scope  of  the  

appeals seemed to be limited and confined to the  

question as to whether the Regulations framed by  

the University Grants Commission under Section 26  

of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, were  

binding on the States and State-funded and other  

Universities and colleges being run therein, as the  

hearing progressed, several other ancillary issues  

also came to be raised.

54. As has been indicated hereinbefore, the Central  

Government  enacted  the  UGC  Act  in  1956  to  

coordinate and determine standards in universities  

and  towards  that  end,  to  establish  a  University  

Grants  Commission  for  taking  all  steps,  as  it  

thought  fit,  for  the  promotion  of  university  

education and for determination and maintenance of  

standards of teaching and research in universities.

Page 77

77

On  24th  December,  1998,  the  Commission  issued  a  

Notification relating to revision of pay scales and  

other service conditions.  Thereafter, after the  

expressions  of  a  series  of  views  regarding  the  

enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to  

62 and from 62 to 65 years, the Central Government  

in its Department of Higher Education, wrote to the  

Secretary, UGC, on 31st December, 2008, with regard  

to a scheme for revision of pay-scales of teachers  

and  other  equivalent  cadres  in  all  the  Central  

universities and Colleges and Deemed Universities,  

following the revision of pay scales of the Central  

Government employees on the recommendation of the  

Sixth Central Pay Commission.   

55. One of the common submissions made on behalf of  

the Respondents was whether the aforesaid scheme  

would  automatically  apply  to  centrally-funded  

institutions, to State universities and educational

Page 78

78

institutions and also private institutions at the  

State level, on account of the stipulation that the  

scheme would have to be accepted in its totality.  

As  indicated  hereinbefore  in  this  judgment,  the  

purport of the scheme was to enhance the pay of the  

teachers  and  other  connected  staff  in  the  State  

universities and educational institutions and also  

to increase their age of superannuation from 62 to  

65  years.   The  scheme  provides  that  if  it  was  

accepted by the concerned State, the UGC would bear  

80% of the expenses on account of such enhancement  

in the pay structure and the remaining 20% would  

have to be borne by the State.  This would be for  

the period commencing from 1st January, 2006, till  

31st March, 2010, after which the entire liability  

on account of revision of pay-scales would have to  

be  taken  over  by  the  State  Government.  

Furthermore, financial assistance from the Central

Page 79

79

Government would be restricted to revision of pay-

scales in respect of only those posts which were in  

existence and had been filled up as on 1st January,  

2006.  While most of the States were willing to  

adopt the scheme, for the purpose of receiving 80%  

of the salary of the teachers and other staff from  

the UGC which would reduce their liability to 20%  

only, they were unwilling to accept the scheme in  

its  composite  form  which  not  only  entailed  

acceptance of the increase in the retirement age  

from 62 to 65 years, but also shifted the total  

liability in regard to the increase in the pay-

scales to the States, after 1st April, 2010.  

56. Another  anxiety  which  is  special  to  certain  

States,  such  as  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  

Kerala, has also come to light during the hearing.  

In both the States, the problem is one of surplus-

age  and  providing  an  opportunity  for  others  to

Page 80

80

enter into service.  On behalf of the State of  

Kerala, it had been urged that there was a large  

number  of  educated  unemployed  youth,  who  are  

waiting to be appointed, but by retaining teachers  

beyond the age of 62 years, they were being denied  

such opportunity.  As far as the State of U.P. is  

concerned, it is one of job expectancy, similar to  

that prevailing in Kerala.  The State Governments  

of the said two States were, therefore, opposed to  

the adoption of the UGC scheme, although, the same  

has not been made compulsorily applicable to the  

universities, colleges and other institutions under  

the control of the State authorities.   

57. To some extent there is an air of redundancy in  

the prayers made on behalf of the Respondents in  

the submissions made regarding the applicability of  

the  scheme  to  the  State  and  its  universities,  

colleges and other educational institutions.  The

Page 81

81

elaborate  arguments  advanced  in  regard  to  the  

powers of the UGC to frame such Regulations and/or  

to direct the increase in the age of teachers from  

62  to  65  years  as  a  condition  precedent  for  

receiving aid from the UGC, appears to have little  

relevance  to  the  actual  issue  involved  in  these  

cases.  That the Commission is empowered to frame  

Regulations under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956,  

for the promotion and coordination of university  

education and for the determination and maintenance  

of standards of teaching, examination and research,  

cannot  be  denied.   The  question  that  assumes  

importance  is  whether  in  the  process  of  framing  

such Regulations, the Commission could alter the  

service  conditions  of  the  employees  which  were  

entirely under the control of the States in regard  

to  State  institutions.   The  authority  of  the  

Commission to frame Regulations with regard to the

Page 82

82

service conditions of teachers in the centrally-  

funded  educational  institutions  is  equally  well  

established.  As has been very rightly done in the  

instant case, the acceptance of the scheme in its  

composite form has been left to the discretion of  

the State Governments.  The concern of the State  

Governments and their authorities that the UGC has  

no authority to impose any conditions with regard  

to  its  educational  institutions  is  clearly  

unfounded.  There is no doubt that the Regulations  

framed by the UGC relate to Entry 66 List I of the  

Constitution  in  the  Seventh  Schedule  to  the  

Constitution,  but  it  does  not  empower  the  

Commission to alter any of the terms and conditions  

of the enactments by the States under Article 309  

of the Constitution.  Under Entry 25 of List III,  

the State is entitled to enact its own laws with  

regard to the service conditions of the teachers

Page 83

83

and other staff of the universities and colleges  

within  the  State  and  the  same  will  have  effect  

unless  they  are  repugnant  to  any  central  

legislation.   

58. However,  in  the  instant  case,  the  said  

questions do not arise, inasmuch as, as mentioned  

hereinabove, the acceptance of the scheme in its  

composite  form  was  made  discretionary  and,  

therefore, there was no compulsion on the State and  

its authorities to adopt the scheme.  The problem  

lies in the desire of the State and its Authorities  

to obtain the benefit of 80% of the salaries of the  

teachers and other staff under the scheme, without  

increasing  the  age  of  retirement  from  62  to  65  

years, or the subsequent condition regarding the  

taking  over  of  the  scheme  with  its  financial  

implications from 1st April, 2010.           

Page 84

84

59. As far as the States of Kerala and U.P. are  

concerned, they have their own problems which are  

localised and stand on a different footing from the  

other States, none of whom who appear to have the  

same  problem.   Education  now  being  a  List  III  

subject,  the  State  Government  is  at  liberty  to  

frame its own laws relating to education in the  

State and is not, therefore, bound to accept or  

follow the Regulations framed by the UGC.  It is  

only  natural  that  if  they  wish  to  adopt  the  

Regulations framed by the Commission under Section  

26 of the UGC Act, 1956, the States will have to  

abide  by  the  conditions  as  laid  down  by  the  

Commission.   

60. That  leaves  us  with  the  question  which  is  

special to the State of Bihar, i.e., the effect of  

Section  67(a)  introduced  into  the  Bihar  State

Page 85

85

Universities  Act,  1976,  by  the  Bihar  State  

Universities  (Amendment)  Act,  2006,  and  the  

corresponding  amendments  made  in  the  Patna  

University  Act,  1976.   Section  67(a)  has  been  

extracted hereinbefore in Paragraph 13.  While, on  

the  one  hand,  it  has  been  mentioned  that  

notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained  

in  any  Act,  Rules,  Statutes,  Regulation  or  

Ordinance,  the  date  of  retirement  of  a  teaching  

employee of the university or of a college shall be  

the date on which he attains the age of 62 years,  

the confusion is created by the next sentence which  

further provides that the date of retirement of a  

teaching employee would be the same which would be  

decided by the UGC.  It has been urged that the  

said  provision  clearly  contemplates  that  in  the  

event  of  an  alteration  resulting  in  an  upward  

revision  of  the  age  of  superannuation,  the  same

Page 86

86

would automatically apply to all such teachers and  

staff, without any further decision of the State  

and  its  authorities  in  that  regard.   In  other  

words, what has been sought to be urged is that  

when  in  regard  to  Centrally-funded  universities,  

colleges and educational institutions, the age of  

superannuation has been increased to 65 years by  

the University Grants Commission, the same has to  

uniformly apply to all universities and colleges  

throughout the country, without any discrimination.  

The same did not necessitate any separate decision  

to  be  taken  by  the  State  and  its  authorities  

regarding the applicability of the decision taken  

by the University Grants Commission.   

61. The  said  submission,  in  our  view,  is  not  

acceptable on account of the fact that in the first  

paragraph  of  the  said  Section  it  has  been  

categorically stated that the age of superannuation

Page 87

87

would be 62 years.  The second paragraph of the  

said section makes it even more clearer, since it  

reiterates  that  the  date  of  retirement  of  non-

teaching  employees,  other  than  the  inferior  

servants, shall be the date on which he attains the  

age of 62 years.  The first proviso also indicates  

that the university shall, in no case, extend the  

period of service of any of the teaching or non-

teaching employee after he attains the age of 62  

years.  The second proviso, however, states that  

even after retirement, teachers may be reappointed  

in appropriate cases up to the age of 65 years in  

the manner laid down in the Statutes made in this  

behalf  in  accordance  with  the  guidelines  of  the  

Commission.   

62. As against the above, certain writ petitions  

have been filed in the Patna High Court  which  

rejected  the  contention  of  the  Petitioners  and

Page 88

88

dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the  

Commission  had  not  taken  any  conscious  decision  

with regard to teachers and staff, except for those  

which were Centrally-funded. Subsequently, however,  

since in its 452nd meeting the Commission took a  

conscious decision and recommended that the Report  

of  the  Pay  Review  Committee  recommending  the  

enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 to 65  

years be made applicable throughout the country,  

fresh writ petitions were filed in the Patna High  

Court, including CWJC No.2330 of 2009, filed by the  

Appellants  herein.   The  learned  Single  Judge  

allowed the writ petitions upon holding that once  

the  Commission  had  recommended  that  the  age  of  

superannuation be accepted as 65 years, the State  

Governments had no discretion but to enhance the  

age  of  superannuation  in  line  with  the  

recommendations  made  by  the  Commission.   The

Page 89

89

Division Bench subsequently reversed the finding of  

the  learned  Single  Judge,  resulting  in  these  

Special Leave Petitions (now Appeals).  

63. Learned  Standing  Counsel  for  the  State  of  

Bihar,  Mr.  Gopal  Singh,  had  in  his  submissions  

reiterated the views of the High Court, i.e., that  

on mere communication, the revision of the pay of  

teachers and increase in the age of superannuation  

would not automatically become effective and that,  

in any event, the right to alter the terms and  

conditions of service of the State universities and  

colleges  were  within  the  domain  of  the  State  

Government  and  till  such  time  as  it  decided  to  

adopt the same, the same would have no application  

to  the  teachers  and  staff  of  the  different  

educational institutions in the State.

Page 90

90

64. We are inclined to agree with such submission  

mainly  because  of  the  fact  that  in  the  amended  

provisions  of  Section  67(a)  it  has  been  

categorically stated that the age of superannuation  

of non-teaching employees would be 62 years and, in  

no case, should the period of service of such non-

teaching employees be extended beyond 62 years.  A  

difference had been made in regard to the teaching  

faculty whose services could be extended up to 65  

years in the manner laid down in the University  

Statutes.  There is no ambiguity that the final  

decision to enhance the age of superannuation of  

teachers within a particular State would be that of  

the State itself.  The right of the Commission to  

frame  Regulations  having  the  force  of  law  is  

admitted.  However, the State Governments are also  

entitled  to  legislate  with  matters  relating  to  

education under Entry 25 of List III.  So long as

Page 91

91

the  State  legislation  did  not  encroach  upon  the  

jurisdiction of Parliament, the State legislation  

would obviously have primacy over any other law.  

If there was any legislation enacted by the Central  

Government under Entry 25 List III, both would have  

to be treated on a par with each other.  In the  

absence  of  any  such  legislation  by  the  Central  

Government under Entry 25 List III, the Regulation  

framed by way of delegated legislation has to yield  

to the plenary jurisdiction of the State Government  

under Entry 25 of List III.

65. We are then faced with the situation where a  

composite  scheme  has  been  framed  by  the  UGC,  

whereby the Commission agreed to bear 80% of the  

expenses incurred by the State if such scheme was  

to be accepted, subject to the condition that the  

remaining 20% of the expense would be met by the  

State and that on and from 1st April, 2010, the

Page 92

92

State Government would take over the entire burden  

and  would  also  have  enhanced  the  age  of  

superannuation of teachers and other staff from 62  

to 65 years.  There being no compulsion to accept  

and/or adopt the said scheme, the States are free  

to decide as to whether the scheme would be adopted  

by them or not.  In our view, there can be no  

automatic application of the recommendations made  

by the Commission, without any conscious decision  

being taken by the State in this regard, on account  

of  the  financial  implications  and  other  

consequences attached to such a decision.  The case  

of  those  Petitioners  who  have  claimed  that  they  

should be given the benefit of the scheme  dehors  

the  responsibility  attached  thereto,  must,  

therefore, fail.

66. However,  within  this  class  of  institutions  

there  is  a  separate  group  where  the  State

Page 93

93

Governments  themselves  have  taken  a  decision  to  

adopt the scheme.  In such cases, the consequences  

envisaged in the scheme itself would automatically  

follow.

67. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with  

the  impugned  judgment  and  order  of  the  Division  

Bench of the High Court in all these matters in the  

light of the various submissions made on behalf of  

the respective parties.  The several Appeals, Writ  

Petitions and the Transferred Case, which involve  

the same questions as considered in this batch of  

cases,  are  all  dismissed.   However,  the  Appeals  

filed by the State of Uttarakhand and Civil Appeals  

arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 6724, 13747 and 14676 of  

2012 are allowed.  As far as the Transfer Petition  

Nos. 1062-1068 OF 2012 are concerned, the same are  

allowed and the Transferred Cases are dismissed.  

The Contempt Petitions are disposed of by virtue of

Page 94

94

this judgment.  However, persons who have continued  

to work on the basis of the interim orders passed  

by this Court or any other Court, shall not be  

denied  the  benefit  of  service  during  the  said  

period.   The  Appeals  and  Petitions  having  been  

dismissed,  both  the  State  Authorities  and  the  

Central Authorities will be at liberty to work out  

their remedies in accordance with law.   

68. Having  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  facts  

involved in these case, parties shall bear their  

own costs.

  ...................CJI.

  (ALTAMAS KABIR)

.....................J.  (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

.....................J.  (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi Dated: July 17, 2013.