Jagdish Prasad Sharma Etc.Etc vs State Of Bihar & Ors

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 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 mentioned and Clause (p)(i) thereof, which deals with the applicability of the Scheme and relevant for our purpose is extracted hereinbelow:

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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 Division Bench subsequently reversed the finding of the learned Single Judge, resulting in these Special Leave Petitions (now Appeals).

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 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.