Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos. 4675-4676  of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31968-31969 of 2017)

DR. R.S. SOHANE .... Appellant(s)

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.  …. Respondent (s)

WITH Civil Appeal Nos.4687-4688 of 2019

(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.31973-31974 of 2017)

Civil Appeal Nos. 4685-4686 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.31996-31997 of 2017)

Civil Appeal No. 4684 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.31972 of 2017)

Civil Appeal No. 4683 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.31965 of 2017)

Civil Appeal No. 4682 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.31980 of 2017)

Civil Appeal No. 4681 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.31971 of 2017)

Civil Appeal No. 4680  of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.31962 of 2017)

Civil Appeal No. 4678 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.31999 of 2017)

Civil Appeal No. 4679 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.32003 of 2017)

1

Civil Appeal Nos.4689-4690 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4822-4823 of 2018)

Civil Appeal No. 4677 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.32005 of 2017)

Civil Appeal No. 4766 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.28545 of 2017)

Civil Appeal No. 4693 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15810 of 2018)

Civil Appeal No. 4691 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.18106 of 2018)

Civil Appeal No. 4692 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No18214 of 2018)

Civil Appeal No.4768 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.12068 of 2019) (Arising out of Diary No.41221 of 2018)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.  

1. The  issue  that  arises  in  the  above  Appeals  is

regarding the entitlement of Teachers working in private

aided  educational  institutions  in  the  State  of  Madhya

Pradesh to the benefit of enhanced age  of superannuation

of 65 years. For the sake of convenience,  we  refer  to  the

facts  in SLP (C) Nos. 31968-31969 of 2017.  The  Appellant

was  appointed  as Lecturer in Commerce (later designated

2

as   Assistant   Professor)   on    01.09.1979   pursuant

to    the  recommendations  of  the  Selection  Committee

constituted under the provisions of Statute No.28 (College

Code 28) of the then Indore University (now Devi Ahilya

Vishwavidyalay,  Indore)  to  PMB,  Gujarati  College,  Indore

which  is  an  affiliated  College.  The  said  College  was

receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government.   

2. On 02.09.1998, the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak

(Adhivarshiki Ayu) Second Amendment Act, 1998 amended

the  provisions  of  Madhya  Pradesh  Shaskiya  Sevak

(Adhivarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 enhancing the age of

superannuation of the Government Teachers from 60 to 62

years.  Teachers working in the private aided Colleges were

also  given  the  benefit  of  enhancement  of  the  age  of

superannuation from 60 to 62 years. On 01.04.2003, the

Standing  Committee  recommended  to  the  University

Coordination  Committee  that  it  would  be  appropriate  to

keep the age of superannuation of Principals, Teachers and

employees  of  private  Colleges  at  par  with  their

counterparts  in  Government  Colleges.  The  said

recommendations  of  the  Standing  Committee  were

3

approved  by  the  Coordination  Committee  in  its  72nd

meeting held on 07.01.2004.          

3.  A  scheme  for  revision  of  pay  of  Teachers  and

equivalent  cadres  in  Universities  and  Colleges  was

introduced  on  31.12.2008  by  the  Ministry  of  Human

Resources Development, Department of Higher Education,

Government of India (2008 Scheme) following the revision

of pay scales of the Central Government employees. The

2008  Scheme  included  enhancement  of  age  of  the

superannuation  of  Teachers  engaged  in  class  room

teaching from 62 to 65 years on the recommendations of

the  6th Central  Pay  Commission.   The  Government  of

Madhya Pradesh accepted the recommendations contained

in the 2008 Scheme on 16.04.2010.  It was resolved that

the benefit  of  the University  Grants Commission (‘UGC’)

pay  scales  including  the  recommendations  for

enhancement  of  the age of  superannuation to  65 years

shall  be extended to Principals,  Teachers,  Librarians and

Sports  officers  serving  in  Government  Colleges  and

Universities.   

4. The  University  Grants  Commission  Regulations  on

Minimum Qualifications for  appointment  of  Teachers and

4

other  Academic  staff  in  Universities  and  Colleges  and

measures  for  the  maintenance  of  Standards  in  Higher

Education, 2010 (‘Regulations’) were framed by the UGC in

exercise of its powers conferred by Section 26 (1) (d) (e) of

the  University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (‘UGC Act’).

The  Appendix  to  the  said  Regulations  contains  the

conditions  of  service  of  Teachers  including  the  age  of

superannuation  which  was  fixed  at  65  years.    The

Government of Madhya Pradesh amended the provisions of

Madhya  Pradesh  Shaskiya  Sevak  (Adhivarshiki  Ayu)

Adhiniyam, 1967 on 02.05.2011 providing the benefit of

enhanced age of superannuation to the Teachers working

in Government Colleges from 62 to 65 years.   

5. Withdrawal  of  the  grant-in-aid  for  the  purpose  of

payment  of  salaries  to  the  Teachers  working  in  100  %

Government  aided  Private  Institutes  was  the  subject

matter of a dispute which was resolved by this Court in

Civil Appeal No.71 of 2004.  By an order dated 07.01.2014,

this  Court  directed  that  the  6th Pay  Commission  scales

should be extended to the Teachers,  Lecturers  and non-

teaching  staff  working  in  the  private  aided  educational

institutes.   This Court clarified that the provisions of the

5

Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon

Tatha  Anya  Karamchariyon  Ke  Vetano  ka  Sandaya)

Sanshodan Adhiniyam, 2000 by which the grant-in-aid to

the Teachers serving in 100% Government aided private

institutes  was  sought  to  be  withdrawn,  would  not  be

applicable  to  those  who  were  appointed  prior  to  the

promulgation  of  the  said  amendment.   Pursuant  to  a

direction given by this Court  in Contempt Petition (Civil)

No.359 of 2014, the teaching staff in the private institutes

in the State of Madhya Pradesh who were working on aided

posts  were  given  the  UGC  pay  scales  as  per  the

recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission at par

with the Government Teachers w.e.f. 01.01.2006.   

6. Aggrieved  by  the  order  dated  06.07.2016  of  the

Management  retiring  the  Appellant  w.e.f.  31.08.2016  on

completion of 62 years without being given the benefit of

continuance till 65 years, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition

in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was dismissed.

The Petitioner filed a Writ Appeal questioning the judgment

of the learned Single Judge.  During the course of hearing,

the Division Bench referred the following two questions for

consideration by a Larger Bench of the High Court:

6

I. Whether  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  Statute No.28  of  the  College  Code  as  amended  and brought  into  force  w.e.f.  07.01.2004  and whether  in  view of  the provisions of  the UGC Regulations, 2010, the Teachers working in the aided private institutes are also entitled  to the benefit of  having their  age of  superannuation fixed at 65 years as is applicable in the case of Government Teachers?

II. Whether  the  Coordinate  Bench  of  this  Court while deciding the Writ Appeal in the case of Dr. Arun  Kumar  has  laid  down  the  principle correctly?  

7. A Full  Bench of  the High Court  of  Madhya Pradesh

answered the reference as following:

(i) That Statute 28 of the College Code has not been amended with effect from 7.1.2004 as it  was a recommendation,  which  has  not  been accepted either by the Executive Council of the respective Universities or by the State Government.   

(ii)  The UGC Regulations, 2010 are not applicable to  the  State  Government  per  se  but  could  be adopted  by  the  State  Government.  The  State Government has accepted the revised pay scales in respect of members of the teaching faculty in the Government Institutes alone.  Therefore, the Teachers working in aided private institutes shall

7

not  be  entitled  to  claim  that  their  age  of superannuation shall be 65 years.   

8. Writ Appeal No.343 of 2016 filed by the Appellant was

disposed of in terms of the judgment of  the Full  Bench.

The  Appellant  filed  a  petition  seeking  review  of  the

judgment of the Full Bench in Writ Appeal No. 950 of 2015

and  the  Division  Bench  in  Writ  Appeal  No.343  of  2016,

which was dismissed by the High Court. The Appellant has

approached  this  Court  assailing  the  legality  of  the  said

judgments of the High Court.   

9. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of the other

cases as they are similar.   Mr. L.C.Patne, learned counsel

appearing for the Appellant in SLP (C) No.31968-31969 of

2017 submitted that the impugned judgments of the High

Court are on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the

Madhya  Pradesh  Vishwavidyalaya  Adhiniyam,  1973

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘1973  Adhiniyam’).   The

powers  conferred  on  the  Coordination  Committee  under

the 1973 Adhiniyam have not been properly appreciated

by the High Court.  He relied upon the Resolution dated

07.01.2004 of the Standing Committee to argue that the

Teachers  working  in  the  private  Colleges  in  aided  posts 8

have to be treated at par with their  counterparts in the

Government Colleges.    The learned counsel found fault

with the conclusion of the Full Bench of the High Court that

the Resolution  dated 07.01.2004 to  enhance the age of

superannuation  of  the  Teachers  working  in  the  aided

private Colleges was only a recommendation.   He took us

through the 1973 Adhiniyam to show that the Coordination

Committee consists of the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor

and  the  Rectors  of  the  Universities  and  several  Senior

Officers of the Government.  Referring to Section 34 of the

1973 Adhiniyam, the learned counsel submitted that the

first Statutes and Ordinances were to be drawn up by the

Coordination Committee.  We were also shown Section 34

(4)  of  the 1973 Adhiniyam which deals with  the powers

and  the  functions  of  the  Coordination  Committee  which

includes the power to approve or reject the Statutes and

Ordinances  submitted  by  the  Executive  Council  of  the

University.   Apart  from  the  other  functions  of  the

Coordination Committee, he placed reliance on Section 36

of  the  1973  Adhiniyam to  submit  that  the  Coordination

Committee can pass a Statute not only on the proposal of

the Executive Council of the University but it can do so on

9

its  own  motion.  He  further  submitted  that  the

recommendation  of  the  Standing  Committee  on

01.04.2003  was  to  keep  the  age  of  superannuation  of

private Teachers and employees of private Colleges at par

with  their  counterparts  working  in  the  Government

Colleges  which  was  approved  by  the  Coordination

Committee  it  its  72nd meeting  held  on  07.01.2004.   He

argued  that  the  said  decision  of  the  Coordination

Committee is binding on the Government as well in view of

the  representation  of  several  Senior  Officers  of  the

Government in the Coordination Committee.  In view of the

amendment  of  the  College  Code  28,  he  submitted  that

private  College  Teachers  working  in  aided  posts  have  a

right  to  continue  in  service  till  they  attain  the  age  of

superannuation of 65 years, by being treated at par with

the Teachers working in the Government Colleges.

10. Mr.Sunil  Fernandes,  learned  Additional  Advocate

General appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, stated

that the judgment of the High Court does not deserve to

be disturbed as it is in accordance with law.  He argued

that Section 36 of the 1973 Adhiniyam has to be read in

such a manner that advice of the Executive Council has to

10

be taken by the Coordination Committee before passing a

Statute  even  if  it  is  done  on  its  own  motion.   The

acceptance of the recommendations made by the UGC is

the  prerogative  of  the  State  Government  and  the  State

Government accepted the payment of revised pay scales

and  enhancement  of  the  age  of  superannuation  to  65

years  only  in  respect  of  the  Teachers  working  in

Government institutes, according to the learned Additional

Advocate General.  He stated that the Teachers working in

private  aided  institutes  are    not  entitled  to  claim

continuance in service till the age of superannuation of 65

years.   

11. Mr. Gopal  Sankarnarayanan, learned Senior Counsel

appearing  for  the  Management  of  a  private  institute,

submitted that the salary to be paid to the Teachers for

working beyond 62 years till the age of attaining 65 years

has to be borne by the Government of Madhya Pradesh.    

12. Section  36  of  the  1973  Adhiniyam  empowers  the

Coordination  Committee  to  prepare  the  First  Statutes  of

the Universities.  Power is conferred on the Coordination

Committee to amend or repeal any Statute and to draft a

Statute  proposed  by  the  Executive  Council  of  the

11

University.  The Coordination Committee is competent to

frame  Statutes  on  its  own  motion.   In  case  a  draft  is

proposed  by  the  Executive  Council,  the  Coordination

Committee may approve such a draft and pass the Statute.

If  the  Coordination  Committee  is  not  satisfied  with  the

draft,  it  can  reject  or  return  the  draft  to  the  Executive

Council for reconsideration.  The recommendations made

by the Executive Council  shall,  thereafter,  be considered

by the Coordination Committee which  has  the power  to

either approve or reject them. The Statute shall  become

effective  from  the  date  specified  by  the  Coordination

Committee after its approval.   

13. Statute No.28 which is the College Code governs the

service conditions of teaching staff.  ‘College’ is defined in

Clause  I  of  the  College  Code  which  includes  a  College

receiving  grant  from  the  State  Government  or  Madhya

Pradesh  Uchcha  Shiksha  Anudan  Ayog  and  Non-Grantee

College  not  receiving  any  aid.   The  College  Code  shall

apply  to  all  Colleges  admitted  to  the  privileges  of  the

University except the Colleges maintained or managed by

the State Government or a Municipal  Corporation or the

University.   Clause 26 of the College Code provides that a

12

permanent Teacher shall be entitled to be in the service of

the College until  he/she completes the age of 60 years.

The  decision  of  the  Coordination  Committee  dated

07.01.2004  was  implemented  by  an  amendment  of  the

Clause  26  of  Statute  No.28  (College  Code)  which  is  as

under:

“It  was  appropriate  to  maintain  the  age  of superannuation  of  Principals,  Teachers  and employees of private Colleges at par with the age of  superannuation  of  Principals,  Teachers  and employees of government Colleges.”  

14. Section 36 of the 1973 Adhiniyam reads as:

36. Statutes How Made  (1) The first Statutes of the University shall be prepared by the Co-ordination committee.  (2)  The  Co-ordination  Committee  may,  from  time  to time make amend or repeal any Statutes by passing a Statute in the manner hereinafter appearing.  (3)  The  Co-ordination  committee  may on  receiving  a proposal from the Executive Council of a University or on its own motion consider the draft of a Statute that is in the interest of either one or all the Universities; (4) Where a draft is proposed by the Executive Council, the Co-ordination Committee may approve of such draft and  pass  the  Statute  or  reject  it  or  return  it  to  the Executive Council for reconsideration either in whole or

13

in  part  together  with  any  amendment,  which  the Coordination Committee may suggest.  (5) After any draft returned under sub-section (4) has been  further  considered  by  the  Executive  Council together  with  any  amendment  suggested  by  the  Co- ordination Committee it shall again be presented to the Co-ordination Committee with a report of the Executive Council thereon and the Co-ordination Committee may approve or reject the Statute.  (6)  The  Co-ordination  Committee  shall  not  take  into consideration nor the Executive Council  shall  propose the draft  of  any Statutes  or  of  any amendment  of  a Statute or of the repeal of any Statute:  

(a)  Affecting  the  Statutes,  power  or  constitution  of any authority  of  the  University  until  such authority has  been  given  an  opportunity  of  expressing  an opinion upon the proposal; or  (b) affecting the conditions of admission of Colleges to  privileges  of  the  University,  until  the  Academic Council has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the proposal and such opinion shall be  forwarded  by  the  Executive  Council  to  the Coordination Committee along with any draft it may propose.

(7)  Where  the  Co-ordination  Committee  approves  the Statutes, they shall become effective from such date as the Co-ordination Committee may specify.”   

15. There is  no manner of  doubt that the Coordination

Committee has the power to prepare, amend and repeal

the  Statutes.   It  can  do  so  on  its  own  motion  or  on

14

receiving  a  proposal  from  the  Executive  Council  of  a

University.  The procedure to be followed in case there is a

proposal  from the Executive Council  of  the University to

frame Statutes is prescribed thereunder.  A plain reading of

Section  36  would  make  it  clear  that  the  views  of  the

Executive Council have to be obtained by the Coordination

Committee only in case the proposal has emanated from

the  Executive  Council  of  a  University  for  preparing  a

Statute.    Such  procedure  is  not  applicable  when  the

Coordination  Committee  prepares  a  Statute  on  its  own

motion.   The  High  Court  erroneously  held  that  the

amendment made to Statute 28 of the College Code was

only a recommendation which was not accepted either by

the Executive Council of the respective Universities or by

the State Government.   

16. Admittedly,  the  amendment  to  Statute  28  of  the

College  Code  on  07.01.2004  was  not  based  on  any

proposal from the Executive Council of any University.   It

was  made  by  the  Coordination  Committee  on  its  own

motion.  The interpretation of Section 34 (4) of the 1973

Adhiniyam  by  the  High  Court  that  the  Coordination

15

Committee  can  only  suggest  modifications  of  the  said

Statutes in force is not correct.  

17. The High Court has gone wrong in observing that any

proposal  for  amendment  to  a  Statute  made  by  the

Coordination Committee has to be sent to the Executive

Council of the University.   The power to amend the Statute

is conferred on the Coordination Committee and not on the

Executive  Council  as  has  been  understood  by  the  High

Court.  A further error committed by the High Court was to

hold  that  there  is  no  recommendation  of  the  Standing

Committee on the basis of which a Resolution was passed

on 07.01.2004.  The High Court lost sight of the minutes of

meeting of the Standing Committee dated 01.04.2003 by

which recommendation was made to maintain the age of

superannuation  of  Teachers  working  in  aided  private

Colleges  at  par  with  those  working  in  the  Government

Colleges.

18. We are not in agreement with the conclusion of the

Full  Bench  of  the  High  Court  that  the  language  of  the

Resolution  dated  07.01.2004  is  in  the  nature  of  a

recommendation.  It is clear from the facts narrated above

16

that the matter pertaining to the age of superannuation of

Teachers working in aided private Colleges was referred by

the Coordination Committee to the Standing Committee.

On  the  basis  of  the  recommendations  of  the  Standing

Committee,  the  Coordination  Committee  passed  a

Resolution on 07.01.2004 which was given effect to by an

amendment to Clause 26 of the College Code.   The second

point  answered  by  the  Full  Bench  is  that  the  UGC

Regulations  are  not  applicable  to  the State  Government

per se but are to be adopted by the State Government.

The High Court was of the opinion that the Government

had accepted the payment of revised pay scales only in

respect  of  the  Teachers  working  in  the  Government

Institutes. The Standing Committee and the Coordination

Committee of the University is represented by the Senior

Officers of the State Government and it is not for the State

Government  to  contend  that  they  will  not  extend  the

benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation till

65  years  to  the  Teachers  working  in  the  private  aided

institutes in spite of the provisions in the College Code.  

17

19. For  the  aforementioned  reasons,  we  set  aside  the

judgment  of  the  Full  Bench  of  the  High  Court  and  the

consequential judgments of the Division Bench of the High

Court  and direct  the Government of  Madhya Pradesh to

pay salaries to the Teachers in aided private Colleges who

are  working  and  also  those  who  have  worked  till  they

attained the age of superannuation of 65 years.  

20. Accordingly, the Appeals are allowed.       

                   ..…................................J.                                                  [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                                              ..…................................J.

                                                 [M.R. SHAH] New Delhi, May 07,  2019.  

18