IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13450 of 2010 Dr.Nawal Kishore Choudhary S/O Late Raghunath Choudhary R/O Village-Shreerampur Ayodhya, P.O.& P.S.Waini, District-Samastipur, Bihar _______ Petitioner Versus 1. Rajendra Agricultural University Bihar, Pusa (Samastipur) through the Registrar. 2. Vice Chancellor , Rajendra Agricultural University Bihar, Pusa (Samastipur). 3. Dean, Faculty of Agriculture Rajendra Agricultural University Bihar, Pusa (Samastipur). 4. State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. University Grants Commision, Bhadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002. 7. Indian Council for Agricultural Research & Education, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi through the Secretary. ______ Respondents with CWJC No.13455 of 2010 1. Dr.Brij Bihari Singh S/O Late Bishwa Nath Singh R/O Village- Majharia, P.O.& P.S.Majharia, District-Buxar, Bihar. 2. Dr. Sharda Nand Prasad S/O Sri Ram Chandra Prasad R/O Village- Karbe Kurha, P.S. Paliganj, District-Patna, Bihar, at present residing at Bihar Agriculture College, Sabour, P.O.& P.S.Sabour, District-Bhagalpur. 3. Dr. Ram Prasad Yadav S/O Late Kunj Bihari Yadav R/O Village- Adharpur, P.O.& P.S.Khangraitha (Baheri), District-Darbhanga at present residing at B2/9, RAU Campus, Pusa, P.O.&P.S.Pusa, Distt- Samastipur. 4. Mahendra Prasad Singh S/O Sri Sant Bilas Singh R/O Vill Sarkar Tola, Bihar Agriculture College Campus Sabour, P.O.& P.S.Sabour, Distt-Bhagalpur, Bihar. 5. Dr. Indradeo Narayan Sharma S/O Late Aash Karan Rai R/O Village- Babupur, P.O.Bakharpur, P.S.Pirpainti, Distt-Bhagalpur, Bihar at present residing at Jute Research Station , P.O.Tingachia, P.S.Katihar, District-Katihar. ______ Petitioners Versus 1. Rajendra Agricultural University Bihar Pusa(Samastipur) through the Registrar. 2. Vice Chancellor , Rajendra Agricultural University Bihar, Pusa (Samastipur). 3. Dean , Faculty Of Agriculture, Rajendra Agrucultural University Bihar, Pusa (Samastipur). 4. The Associate Dean -Cum-Principal, Bihar Agriculture University Sabour. 2 5. The Officer Incharge, Jute Research Centre Katihar. 6. State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture Government of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 8. University Grants Commission, Bhadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 through the Secretary. 9. Indian Council for Agricultural Research and Education, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi through the Secretary ______ Respondents ___ For the petitioners: M/s. Y V Giri, Sr. Advocate and Raju Giri. For the respondent University : M/S. D K Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Anil Upadhyay, Chandra Mohan Singh, Prakash Mahto and Samir Kr. Sinha. For the State : M/s. Amar Nath Deo, SC-26, Thakur Jai Singh, AC to SC-26 and S K Jha, AC to GA-10. For the I.C.A.R : Mr. S N Pathak, SCCG & Surendra Prasad Singh, SCCG. For the UGC : Mr. P N Shahi. ------- 12. 15/09/2011 Since both the writ applications raise similar questions of law based on more or less identical facts, both of them were heard together and are sought to be disposed of by a common order. 2. All the petitioners are holding teaching posts of various categories under the respondent Rajendra Agricultural University, which was set up under Bihar Agricultural University Act, 1987. Such name of statute and university suggests that the purpose for setting up such a university was to impart education and knowledge in various branches of agriculture as well as to give scientific thrust to teaching in the branches of agriculture. 3. Petitioners entered service of the university in different times and rose in the rank some even becoming 3 professors over a period of time. They have rushed to the High Court because they are sought to be retired at the age of 62. They want a direction upon the respondents to enhance the age of retirement from 62 to 65 bringing parity with teachers of other universities since recommendations in this regard have not only been made by the University Grants Commission but even Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. 4. The main thrust of their argument is that University Grants Commission has a significant role `to play in matters of regulations and setting standards in universities across the country and the object is to bring about the certain amount of uniformity and standards in all the universities, which are duly recognized by the University Grants Commission under University Grants Commission Act. 5. There is no dispute on one aspect that the University in question has been created in furtherance to the Act of 1987 and Clause 13.3(2) states that each employee, teaching or non teaching, of the university shall superannuate on attaining the age of 62 years and thereafter no further extension of service shall be given. The question, however, is whether Clause 13.3.(2) ought to be suitably amended, modified or brought in consonance with directive of the University Grants Commission as well the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. 6. Before adverting to the line of argument on behalf 4 of petitioners the Court would like to take note of the stand of the respondent State and the University in question on enhancement of age of retirement for these petitioners or such other employees working in the University. 7. The stand of the University and the State is that Rajendra Agricultural University is guided by a separate Statute and Act. The provisions of the Act govern the functioning of the university. If their regulation or Act talks in terms of superannuation at the age of 62 for its employees then no demand can be made for enhancement of the age of retirement contrary to the said provision. 8. The other line of contention is that no parity with other State Universities ought to be drawn because the working of other universities vis-à-vis this specialized agricultural university is totally different. Any decision taken by the State with regard to other universities in matters of enhancement of age of superannuation will not have automatic applicability to the present university unless decisions are taken either by the State or the University authorities to augment the age of superannuation making it 65 years. There can never be a directive or demand upon the respondents to amend the law till they decide to do something about it as a matter of policy. 9. The submission of the State as well as the University may sound attractive on the face of it. There cannot be any denial that there is a set of statute which governs the 5 functioning of the university as such but statute by itself is not the be-all and end-all in matters of functioning of the university. Since the University Grants Commission does play a role and can issue directive or guidelines which are binding upon some institutions recognized by it. It cannot be said that the University in question or the State Government in question can ignore the same in toto. 10. Petitioners have brought on record a communication issued by the University Grants Commission dated 28th February, 2009. It is addressed to all Education Secretary of all the States. This communication contained in Annexure-1 of CWJC No. 13450 of 2010 talks in terms of scheme of revisions of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres including the administrative posts in universities and colleges following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Commission. The said communication directs the State Governments to take action to adopt Government of India’s scheme for such universities and colleges across the board. This communication was followed by yet another letter addressed to all the Chief Secretaries of the State Governments on 13th March, 2009. The Ministry of Agriculture vide communication contained in Annexure-2 not only gives a directive to the State Governments to consider, adopt and implement the scheme in the State Agricultural Universities coming under the purview of 6 the State Legislature but even talks in terms of financial assistance to be provided by the Central Government to the State Governments in manner indicated in the communication of 31st December, 2008 made by the Human Resource Development Department, Government of India. There are series of letters and communications reiterating similar kind of directives. 11. On 30th June, 2010 the University Grants Commission in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of section 26 of University Grant Commission Act, 1956 framed certain regulations with regard to minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges and other measures for maintenance of standards in higher education. This regulation was duly notified in the gazette and it laid down the pay-scales and the age of superannuation. This was in conformity with the notification issued by the Ministry of H R D, Government of India. 12. Recommendations have been made to enhance the age of superannuation of certain teachers from 62 to 65 and in some cases even 70 years. 13. It is not a case that the State Government has ignored such directives with regard to other universities in existence in the State of Bihar. They have or they were compelled to do so on the intervention of the Court and 7 several other litigations came before the High Court on similar count. The decision rendered in the case of Dr. Suniti Pandey and others which was CWJC No. 11348 of 2010. It was heard by a learned Single Judge and decided vide order dated 20th August, 2010. The Court after taking into consideration the various facets of the law, regulations and the UGC guidelines gave a direction that with effect from 30th June, 2010 the age of superannuation will be 65 years for all universities in the State. Emphasis and reliance therefore is being placed by the petitioners on the rationale and the ratio given in the said judgment in the case of Dr. Suniti Pandey. Counsel for the petitioners also point out to the Court that Rajendra Agricultural University was also a party in those batch of writ applications, which came to be decided by the learned Single Judge on 20.8.2010. ` 14. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to a decision rendered in a batch of writ applications decided by Karnataka High Court on 22nd day of June, 2011 in W.P. No. 13454 of 2011 and other analogous cases where in similar circumstance as well as taking note of the decision of Patna High Court rendered in the case of Dr. Suniti Pandey, issued a directive to the State Government that in terms of the University Grants Commission Regulation, 2010, the age of superannuation of the university employees would be 65. A copy of the said decision has been tendered and is part of the 8 record. 15. I.A. No. 9315 of 2010 in CWJC No.13450 of 2010 was also filed. By this I.A. an amendment was sought to the writ application wherein quashing of resolution dated 29.7.2010 contained in Anneuxre-15 has also been prayed for because by virtue of this resolution issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, recommendations of the Government of India as well as the University Grants Commission were implemented in the universities governed by Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as well as Patna University Act, 1976. It accepted the revised pay- scales on the recommendation of 6th Pay Revision Committee’s recommendation, except the age of superannuation. This notification did not include the Agricultural University. 16. Attention of the Court was drawn to Annexure- 16 dated 11th May, 2010, which is a directive of the Ministry of HRD Department, Government of India wherein para 4 and 5 categorically state as hereunder:- “4. Thus as per the terms and conditions of the Ministry’s letter dated 31.12.2008 the State Governments are required to implement the scheme as a composite one, including the age of superannuation (mentioned in para 8 (f) of this Ministry’s letter dated 31.12.2008), together with all the conditions specified or to be specified by University Grants Commission (UGC) by regulations and guidelines. 5. Therefore, the State Governments shall have 9 to adopt the scheme including the regulations as may be specified by UGC, for being eligible for appropriate Central assistance. However, it is mentioned that the various allowances other than pay scales, applicable to teachers and equivalent cadres in State Governments shall be governed the respective State Government rules. The reimbursement will be restricted to payment of 80% arrears of the revised pay in the pay band applicable plus Academic Grade Pay (AGP) for the period 1.1.2006 to 31.3.2010. No allowances of pension would be punishable for reimbursement for the above period.” 17. Counsel for the petitioners also brought to my notice a decision rendered by the Jharkhand High Court in a batch of writ petitions namely W.P.(S) No. 363 of 2010 and analogous cases decided on 10.1.2011. This order is Annexure- 18 annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner namely Dr. Nawal Kishore Choudhary. The issue was similar and the Court gave a directive to enhance the age of superannuation to 65 years. 18. If the totality of the various decisions which have been brought to the notice of this Court on the issue is read as a whole coupled with the directive issued by the University Grants Commission, the regulations notified by the UGC in 2010, then there is a circumstance to consider that there is an obligation upon the State Government to enhance the age of superannuation besides implementation of the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee. There does not seem to be 10 much of an escape in terms of an option or a leeway available to the State or the University. 19. There cannot also be selective or piecemeal implementation of the directives since those directives are composite whole and have to be implemented as a package. If there is reluctance on the part of the State on this count, then intervention will be required by the Court. 20. Stand taken by the State or the University that no legal right for enhancement of age from 62 to 65 exists or that till amendment is brought about to the regulations of Bihar Agricultural University Act, 1987, these petitioners cannot claim the benefit either through a court of law or as a matter of right is negated. Similar view has been taken by the Jharkhand High Court and the Karnataka High Court as well. Though the decisions Jharkhand High Court and Karnataka High Court are not binding upon this Court but they surely have persuasive value and if the rationale and the reason given in those decisions do not seem to be faulty as such, then this Court cannot ignore the existence of such judicial pronouncement merely because it has been given by yet another High Court. 21. The Court reaches a decisive conclusion that taking into consideration the various directives, the communications as well as 2010 UGC regulation, there is a mandate for the respondent authorities to bring about parity 11 even in matter of superannuation of Agricultural University in the State. There is a requirement upon the State Government as well as the University in question to either amend or notify the age of superannuation enhancing it from 62 to 65 to ensure that the uniformity in terms of recommendations made by the University Grants Commission and the Central Government is brought about even in the cases of these petitioners. 22. Both the writ applications, therefore, are allowed. 23. State of Bihar as well as the University are directed to take immediate steps to ensure the enhancement of age of superannuation of the employees like the petitioners of the Agricultural University to 65 years. They shall be entitled to continue in service till they reach the new age of superannuation. If during the pendency of the writ application they have been made to retire, then they all have right to claim their position back on the post they were working till they reach the new age of superannuation. 24. Both the writ applications are allowed in terms of the above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)