1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER (1) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 477/2010. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology &Anr. Vs. L.L. Sharma & Ors. ... (2) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 478/2010. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology &Anr. Vs. Dr. T.S. Rawat & Ors. ... Reasons for the order dated :: 2nd August 2010. PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. G.R. Punia ] Mr. Mahendra Choudhary ], for the appellants. Dr. P.S. Bhati ] Mr. R.S. Shekhawat ], for the respondents. <><><> BY THE COURT: These two intra-court appeals preferred against the common order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge on the prayer for interim relief in respective writ petitions were considered together on 02.08.2010; and, after hearing the parties at length, we allowed the appeals while making observations for expeditious proceedings in the pending writ petitions for the reasons delineated infra. The private respondents in these appeals have been working on different posts in the appellant - Maharana Pratap 2 University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur ('the appellant-University' hereafter). Faced with imminent retirement with the end of the months of July, August and September on completion of age of 60 years, the petitioners preferred the writ petitions wherefrom have arisen these appeals. The sum and substance of the submissions and the contentions of the writ petitioners has been that on 31.12.2008, the Ministry of Human Resource Development ('MHRD') in its Department of Higher Education framed a scheme of 'revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in Universities and Colleges following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission' wherein it was stated, inter alia, that superannuation age of the teachers has already been enhanced to 65 years and directions were issued to the University Grants Commission ('UGC') that the scheme may be extended to the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of State Legislature provided that the State Government wishes to adopt and implement this scheme. According to the petitioners, the UGC also issued the orders on 28.02.2009 to all the concerned Education Secretaries of the respective State Governments to adopt the scheme of revision of pay and enhancement of retirement age. The petitioners further pointed out that the Indian Council of Agricultural Research ('ICAR') issued directions for adopting the said scheme dated 31.12.2008; and the Government of 3 India in its Department of Agricultural Research also directed the State Government to implement the said scheme. The petitioners further averred that on 11.05.2010, the MHRD reiterated that while implementing the scheme dated 31.12.2008, reimbursement by the competent authority would be applicable only when the State Government implements the scheme of revision of pay scales of teachers and equivalent cadres as a composite package including the age of superannuation. The petitioners also referred to the UGC Regulations for minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and measures for maintenance of standards in higher education wherein it has, inter alia, been provided that,- “The revised scales of pay and other service conditions including age of superannuation in central universities and other institutions maintained and/ or funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC), shall be strictly in accordance with the decision of the Central Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), as contained in Appendix-1.” The petitioners contended that due to inaction and apathy on the part of the respondent-State in not adopting and implementing the scheme, several teachers had already retired on attaining the age of 60 years and others would be retiring soon but on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the petitioners were entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation i.e., 65 years. While alleging acts and omissions of the State to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, the petitioners preferred the writ petitions 4 aforesaid and prayed for the reliefs in the following manner (as reproduced from CWP No.6430/2010):- ''A/ By an appropriate writ order or direction, the impugned provision incorporated in (xiii) of para 4 of the impugned notification dated 18.11.2009 may kindly be declared illegal being contrary to (x) of para 4 of the notification dated 18.11.2009 and being contrary to clause (f) of para 8 of the Central Government order dated 31.12.2008. Thus, the same also kindly be declared illegal and invalid being violative of the Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India therefore the same may kindly be struck down and set aside, with all consequential benefits. B/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the scheme of 31.12.2008 (Annex.) as composite one and consequently enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years. C/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the mandatory provisions of UGC for age of superannuation and the same may be made applicable with all consequential benefits upon the petitioners. D/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to withhold the UGC grant to the University until the University undertakes to follow the scheme of 31.12.2008 in totality. E/ Any order appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. F/ Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.'' The respondent-University entered caveat in the said writ petitions which were considered along with other similar matters concerning other universities on 21.07.2010; and the learned Single Judge of this Court proceeded to pass the impugned interim order that reads as under:- 5 “Mr. G.R. Punia, has filed caveat on behalf of respondent Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur in SBCWP No. 6429/2010 & 6430/2010. He may be supplied two sets of writ petition during the course of the day. Mr. P.R. Singh appears for the Jai Narain Vyas University in SBCWP No. 6428/2010 & 6431/2010. He is directed to accept notice. Two sets of writ petition be supplied to him during the course of the day. Learned counsels for the respondents prays for time to file reply. They may do so before the next date. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that in similar writ petition, this Court has already granted interim relief and one of such order passed in writ petition SBCWP No. 5578/2010 – Dr. (Mrs.) Aruna Swaroop Mathur vs. State of Raj. & Ors. dated 29/6/2010 is placed on record. Those matters are posted on 16/8/2010 for final disposal. Learned counsel Mr. G.R . Punia bringing to the notice of the Court a decision of coordinate bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 8298/2010 (Prof. Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors.) decided on 29/6/2010 submitted that similar matter has already been decided in the aforesaid case at Jaipur Bench and writ petition has been dismissed, therefore, no interim relief may be granted in the present cases. After hearing the learned counsels at some length and since reply to the writ petitions is yet to be filed and writ petitions are to be decided finally on merits after the pleadings are complete, this Court is of the opinion that despite objection of learned counsel for the respondent University, this Court should maintain consistency as far as interim relief is concerned till these writ petitions are heard and decided on the next date. Therefore, it is directed that respondent University shall not retire the petitioners till next date. Put up for hearing on 16/8/2010 along with all connected matters.” The appellant-University has filed these intra-court appeals questioning the interim order aforesaid. Appearance has been put on behalf of the private respondents-writ petitioners in these appeals in caveat; and, having regard to 6 the circumstances of the case and the questions involved in these appeals, while dispensing with service on proforma respondents, we have heard the parties finally. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that there was no justification for the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order and thereby thrusting the writ petitioners on the appellant-University even after their attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years, contrary to the statute of the appellant-University governing the service conditions of the writ petitioners. It is also contended that it was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Single Judge that in a similar matter, a co-ordinate Single Bench has already dismissed the writ petition and on parity, the present writ petitions were required to be dismissed and in any case, there was no occasion to pass an interim order particularly when the age of superannuation in the appellant-University remains 60 years. It is also contended that the aspects of balance of convenience and irreparable injury have not even been considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel also contended that the appellant is not a Central University and the scheme as suggested by the writ petitioners is not applicable to it. The decisions in Rajasthan Agriculture University Vs. Ram Krishna Vyas: (1999) 4 SCC 720 and T.P.George & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.: 1992 Supp (3) SCC 191 have been referred. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-writ petitioners has strenuously contended that the scheme of 7 MHRD dated 31.12.2008 having now been made the part of UGC Regulations as per the notification issued on 29.06.2010, they have acquired statutory character of a Central Legislation and neither the State Government nor the appellant-University is entitled to avoid the same or obviate their compliance. Learned counsel further contended that when the scheme has in fact been employed and implemented concerning the revision of pay scales, mandatory it was to employ the same as a composite one; and it was never permissible for the State Government and the appellant-University to suggest as if the part of the scheme dealing with the age of superannuation would not be accepted by them. The learned counsel submitted that the UGC Regulations dated 29.06.2010 were not even subject of consideration in the judgment delivered by a Single Judge of this Court on the even date in CWP No.8298/2010 and in the face of such Regulations, the said decision in Manoj Kumar Sharma's case cannot be said to be of any adverse effect on the rights of the writ petitioners. Learned counsel has referred to the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and has also referred to the decisions in Prof. Yashpal & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.: (2005) 5 SCC 420 and Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department & Ors.: (2009) 4 SCC 590. Learned counsel for the respondents writ-petitioners also made a fervent appeal for continuing with the interim 8 order until disposal of the writ petition and even offered that the petitioners may be allowed to work for which they would not claim salary unless succeeding in the writ petition. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, we formed the opinion that the impugned order could not be sustained and the appeals were required to be allowed. It appears appropriate to make it clear in the first place that these appeals having been filed against an interim order and else, the main writ petitions being pending consideration, we would not like to make any comment or observation that might have any bearing on the merits of the controversy that is required to be adjudicated before the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions and is not required to be finally pronounced in these appeals. Taking a comprehensive view of the matter with reference to the frame of writ petition and the contentions of the parties, it is but apparent that as at present, the petitioners suggest deduction of the result that age of superannuation has been enhanced in relation to the employees like them in the appellant-University; and prayers have been made for striking out the provisions to the contrary; and directions have been sought against the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years. Whether such directions are required to be issued or not, is definitely a matter for consideration in the pending writ petitions but then, pending such adjudication, the present operating position of the 9 statute governing the appellant-University and thereby its employees could not have been ignored. We are clearly of opinion that such nature interim order could not have been passed whereby the appellant-University was forced to continue with the writ petitioners beyond the present age of superannuation applicable in the appellant-University. In the matters of present nature, we are clearly of the view that even if the petitioners are able to make out an arguable case that is not by itself decisive of the question of grant for interim relief because the very fundamental and essential factors of balance of convenience and irreparable injury cannot be considered existing in favour of the writ petitioners. On the other hand, in the event of success in the writ petition, the Court is always competent to pass appropriate orders and for that matter, even to mould the relief if so required. The alternative suggestions as made on behalf of the petitioners do not carry any weight or substance. We see no reason or basis wherefor the proposition as suggested on behalf of the petitioners, of allowing them to work without claiming salary, be countenanced. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the questions sought to be raised, we made it clear to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that unnecessary delay and protraction of the proceedings in these writ petitions is required to be avoided, to which the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he may be granted 10 three days' time to submit reply to the writ petition and that the appellant shall proceed expeditiously in the matter before the learned Single Judge. In the interest of justice, we direct that it shall be required of the appellant to submit reply to the writ petition within three days from today and it shall be expected that the writ petition is taken up for final hearing on the stipulated date i.e., 16.08.2010 and consideration of the writ petition shall not be deferred on any request for adjournment on behalf of the appellant-University. For the reasons foregoing, did we pass the following order on 02.08.2010:- “The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The appeals stand allowed with observations. Impugned order is set aside. No costs. (Reasons to follow).” Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed with observations; and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (JAGDISH BHALLA),CJ. MK