# JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA ETC. ETC v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 11 S.C.R. 696
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-07-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 5527-5543 of 2013
- **Bench:** Altamas Kabir, Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. Chelameswar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jagdish-prasad-sharma-etc-etc-v-state-of-bihar-ors-28700
- **Pages:** 48

## Headnote

C
Education/Educational Institutions - Service conditions
-
A composite Scheme framed by University Grants
Commission in exercise of powers under Regulations framed
under University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - To revise
the pay of teachers and connected staff of the State
Universities and educational institutions and to increase their
D
age of superannuation from 62 to 65 - The States were
required to accept the Scheme in composite form, but the
acceptance thereof was left to the discretion of the States -
States were unwilling to accept the Scheme in its composite
form - Giving rise to present litigations - Held: Education
E
being List Ill subject of VII Schedule of the Constitution, States
are at liberty to frame their own laws on this subject and the
same will have primacy if it does not encroach upon
jurisdiction of Parliament - In absence of any such legislation
by the Central Government under Entry 25 of List Ill, the
F
Regulations framed by way of delegated legislation, has to
yield to the jurisdiction of the State - The States, therefore,
were not bound to accept or follow the regulations framed by
UGC - But if they wish to adopt the Regulations, the States
will have to abide by the Conditions laid down by the
G
Commission - 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 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - VII Schedule List Ill, Entry 25 -
University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
H
696
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR
697
The Pay Review Committee set up by the University A
Grants Commission, submitted its report 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. It recommended that the age of superannuation B
throughout the country should be 65 years, whether in
the State or Central University. Thereafter the
Commission in exercise of its powers u/s. 26 of University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 framed a Scheme. The
Scheme indicated that in case the State Governments c
opted to revise the pay scales of teachers and other
equivalent cadres covered under the Scheme, financial
assistane from Central Government to such State
Governments would be to the extent of 80% of the
additional expenditure involved in the implementation of 0
the revisionj and that such financial assistance would be
provided from 1.1.2006 to 31.3.2010 and thereafter the
entire liability on account of revision of pay scales would
have to be taken over by the State Government. The
Central assistance for implementing the Scheme was E
subject to the conditions that the entire Scheme of
revision, together with all the conditions to be laid down
by the Commission, 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, without any F
modification. The condition also included the
enhancement of the age of superannuation of such
teachers to 65 years. However, the acceptance of the
composite Scheme was made discretionary. While most
of the States were willing to adopt the Scheme, but not G
in its composite forms i.e. they were not agreeable to
increase in retirement age to 65 and also wanted to shift
the liability on Central Government with regard to the
increase in pay-scales even after 1.4.2010.
•
H
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 11 S.C.R.
A
The questions, therefore, in the present appeals, writ
petitions and transferred cases were whether the Scheme
would automatically apply to Centrally-founded
institutions, State. Universities and educational
institutions and also private institutions at the State level;
8
and that in the process of framing regulations, whether
the Commission could alter the service conditions of the
employees which were entirely under the control of the
States.
Disposing of

## Text

_Characters 0–39,921 of 96,917. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39921 for what follows._

A
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 696
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5527-5543 of 2013)
B
JULY 17, 2013
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI., SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]
C
Education/Educational Institutions - Service conditions
-
A composite Scheme framed by University Grants
Commission in exercise of powers under Regulations framed
under University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - To revise
the pay of teachers and connected staff of the State
Universities and educational institutions and to increase their
D
age of superannuation from 62 to 65 - The States were
required to accept the Scheme in composite form, but the
acceptance thereof was left to the discretion of the States -
States were unwilling to accept the Scheme in its composite
form - Giving rise to present litigations - Held: Education
E
being List Ill subject of VII Schedule of the Constitution, States
are at liberty to frame their own laws on this subject and the
same will have primacy if it does not encroach upon
jurisdiction of Parliament - In absence of any such legislation
by the Central Government under Entry 25 of List Ill, the
F
Regulations framed by way of delegated legislation, has to
yield to the jurisdiction of the State - The States, therefore,
were not bound to accept or follow the regulations framed by
UGC - But if they wish to adopt the Regulations, the States
will have to abide by the Conditions laid down by the
G
Commission - 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 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - VII Schedule List Ill, Entry 25 -
University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
H
696
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR
697
The Pay Review Committee set up by the University A
Grants Commission, submitted its report 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. It recommended that the age of superannuation B
throughout the country should be 65 years, whether in
the State or Central University. Thereafter the
Commission in exercise of its powers u/s. 26 of University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 framed a Scheme. The
Scheme indicated that in case the State Governments c
opted to revise the pay scales of teachers and other
equivalent cadres covered under the Scheme, financial
assistane from Central Government to such State
Governments would be to the extent of 80% of the
additional expenditure involved in the implementation of 0
the revisionj and that such financial assistance would be
provided from 1.1.2006 to 31.3.2010 and thereafter the
entire liability on account of revision of pay scales would
have to be taken over by the State Government. The
Central assistance for implementing the Scheme was E
subject to the conditions that the entire Scheme of
revision, together with all the conditions to be laid down
by the Commission, 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, without any F
modification. The condition also included the
enhancement of the age of superannuation of such
teachers to 65 years. However, the acceptance of the
composite Scheme was made discretionary. While most
of the States were willing to adopt the Scheme, but not G
in its composite forms i.e. they were not agreeable to
increase in retirement age to 65 and also wanted to shift
the liability on Central Government with regard to the
increase in pay-scales even after 1.4.2010.
•
H
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 11 S.C.R.
A
The questions, therefore, in the present appeals, writ
petitions and transferred cases were whether the Scheme
would automatically apply to Centrally-founded
institutions, State. Universities and educational
institutions and also private institutions at the State level;
8
and that in the process of framing regulations, whether
the Commission could alter the service conditions of the
employees which were entirely under the control of the
States.
Disposing of the appeals, petitions and transferred
C cases, the Court
HELD: 1. Education being a List Ill subject of the VII
Schedule to the Constitution, the State Government is at
liberty to frame its own laws relating to education in the
D State and is not, therefore, bound to accept or follow the
Regulations framed by the UGC. It is only natural that if
the States wish to adopt the Regulations framed by the
Commission under Section 26 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956, they will have to abide by the
E
conditions as laid down by the Commission. [Para 59]
[739-8-C]
2. The question which is special to the State of Bihar,
i.e., the effect of Section 67(a) introduced into the Bihar
State Universities Act, 1976, by the Bihar State University
F
(Amendment) Act, 2006, and the corresponding
amendments made in the Patna University Act, 1976.
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
G 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
H which would be decided by the UGC. It has been urged
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR
699
that the said provision clearly contemplates that in the
A
event of an alteration resulting in an upward revision of
the age of superannuation, the same 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
B
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 c
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. [Para 60]
[739-0-H; 740-A·B]
3. 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. 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
D
E
F
in regard to the teaching faculty whose services could be
G
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
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 11 S.C.R.
A 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 Ill. So
long as the State legislation did not encroach upon the
jurisdiction of Parliament, the State legislation would
B obviously have primacy over any other law. If there was
any legislation enacted by the Central Government under
Entry 25 List Ill, 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 Ill, the
c Regulation framed by way of delegated legislation has to
yield to the plenary jurisdiction of the State Government
under Entry 25 of List Ill. [Paras 63 and 64] [741-C-H; 742·
A-BJ
4. The situation where a composite scheme has been
D 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 State
E 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
F would be adopted by them or not. 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
G 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. [Para 65] [742-B-F]
5. However, within this class of institutions there is
H a separate group where the State Governments
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR
701
themselves have taken a decision to adopt the scheme.
A
In such cases, the consequences envisaged in the
scheme itself would automatically follow. [Para 66] [742F-G]
6. So far as the States of Kerala and U.P. are
8
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. [Para 59] [739-B]
7. The persons who have continued to work on theC
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 D
remedies in accordance with law. [Para 67] [743-B-C]
University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh (1994) Suppl 3 SCC
516: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 217; Ramkrishnaiah vs. Union of
India (1989) 2 SCC 541: 1989 (2) SCR 92; B.N. Nagarajan
E
vs. State of Mysore (1966) 3 SCR 682; Sant Ram Sharma
vs. State of Rajasthan (1968) 1 SCR 111; Ramachandra
Shankar Deodhar vs. State of Maharashtra (1974) 1 SCC
317: 1974 (2) SCR 216;
.
·Gujarat University, Ahmedabad vs. Krishna Ranganath
F
Mudholkar 1963 Suppl 1 SCR 112; Dr. Preeti Srivastava vs.
State of M.P. (1999) 7 sec 120: 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249;
Pavai Ammal Vaiyapuri Education Trust vs. Government of
Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 259: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 738;
B. Bharat Kumar and Ors. vs Osmania University and
Ors. (2007) 11 sec 58: 2001 (6) SCR 168; Synthetic and
Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (1990) 1
SCC 109: 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 623; Annamalai University
G
vs. Secretary to Govt. Information and Tourism Department
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 11 S.C.R.
A & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 590: 2009 (3) SCR 355; Prem Chand
Jain vs. R.K. Chhabra (1984) 2 SCC 302: 1984 (2) SCR 883;
S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 T.P.; George
vs State of Kera/a 1992 Supp (3) SCC 191: 1992 (2) SCR
311; All India Sainik Schools Employees' Association vs.
B Defence Minister-cum-Chairman Board of Governors, Sainik
Schools Society, New Delhi 1989 Supp 1 SCC 205: 1988
(3) Suppl. SCR 398; Javed vs. State of Haryana (2003) 8
sec 369: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 947 - cited.
c.
Case Law Reference:
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 217
cited
Para 26
198.9 (2) SCR 92
cited
Para 27
(1966) 3 SCR 682
cited
Para 27
D
(1968) 1 SCR 111
cited
Para 27
1974 (2) SCR 216
cited
Para 27
1963 Suppl 1 SCR 112
cited
Para 28
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249
cited
Para 37
E
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 738
cited
Para 38
2007 (6) SCR 168
cited
Para 39
1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 623
cited
Para 43
F
2009 (3) SCR 355
cited
Para 44
1984 (2) SCR 883
cited
Para 44
(1994) 3 sec 1 T.P.
cited
Para 48
1992 (2) SCR 311
cited
Para 49
G
1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 398
cited
Para 49
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 947
cited
Para 49
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
5527-5543 of 2013.
H
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR
703
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.05.2010 in LPA
A
Nos. 117,280,282, 285, 287, 289, 293, 294, 354, 384,416,
519, 526, 574, 578, 580 and 592 of 2010 of the High Court of
Patna.
WITH
C.A. No. 5544, 5545, 5546, 5547, 5548, 5549-5551, 5552,
5553, 5554, 5555, 5556, 5557, 5558, 5559-5560 of 2013,
WP(C) No. 348 of 2011, C.A. No. 5561 of 2013, W.P.(C) No.
B
442 of 2011, C.A. No. 5562, 5563, 5564-5566, 5567, 55695573, 5574 of 2013, C.P. (C) 425 of 2011 in C.A. No. 5555 of C
2013, C.A. No. 5575, 5576, 5577, 5578, 5579, 5580 of 2013,
C.P. (C) 316 of 2011 in C.A. No. 5548 of 2013, C.P. (C) 57 of
2012 in C.A. No. 5548 of 2013, C.A. No. 5581, 5582 of 2013,
W.P.(C) No. 61 of 2012, C.A. No. 5583, 5584-5592, 5593,
5594-5606, 5607, 5608-5610, 5611-5615, 5616, 5617, 5618,
D
5619, 5620, 5621-5629, 5630-5653, 5654, 5655-5658, 56595660, 5661,5562, 5663, 5664, 5665, 5666, 5667-5668, 5669,
5670,5671,5672,5673,5674,5675,5676,5677,5678,5679,
5680-5682, 5683, 5684, 5685, 5686, 5687, 5688, 5689-5690
of 2013, T.C. (C) No. 100-106 of 2013, C.A. No. 5691, 5692,
E
5693,5694,5695, 5696, 5697, 5698, 5699, 5700, 5701,5702,
5703, 5704, 5705, 5706, 5707, 5708 of 2013, W.P. (C) No.
88 of 2012, C.A. Nos. 5709-5773, 5774-5788, 5789-5790,
5791,5792,5793,5794,5795,5796,5797,5798,5799,5800,
5801, 5802-5803, 5804-5805, 5806-5809 of 2013, T.C.(C) No.
F
27 of 2013, C.A. No. 5810, 5811, 5812 of 2013, W.P.(C) No.
83 of 2013, C.A. No. 5813, 5814 of 2013, W.P. (C) No. 53 of
2013, C.A. No. 5815, 5816, 5817, 5818 of 2013.
Rakesh K. Khanna, Sidharth Luthra, ASGs, P.S. Patwalia,
J.S. Attrim, Dinesh Dwivedi, R.S. Sodhi, Vijay Hansaria, R.
G
Venkataramani, Rakesh Dwivedi, R.P. Kabilan, B.S. Patil,
Sanchar Anand, Manjit Singh, Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAGs,
Devashish Bharuka, Jasneet Kaur, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
Renjith B. Marar, T.G. Narayanan Nair, Senthil Jagadeesan,
H
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 11 S.C.R.
A D.N. Dubey, Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Sandeep Kumar
Dwivedi, Asha Gopalan Nair, Anupam Dwivedi, Mohit Kumar
Gupta, Suresh Chandra Tripathi, Sarla Chandra, Mukesh
Verma, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Yash Pal Dhingra, Rohit Pandey,
Garvesh Kabra, Adarsh Upadhyay, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Hari
B KumarV., P.I. Jose, K. Vinod Kumar, Kumar Ranjan, Priyanka
Bhariok, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Jetendra Singh, Priyanka Singh,
S.K. Sabharwal, Chiraranjan Addey, C.S.N. Mohan Rao,
Prateek Dwivedi, Anuvrat Sharma, Alka Sinha, Mohit Kumar
Gupta, Manisha Bhandari, S.K. Bhattacharya, Debasis Misra,
C Aishwarya Bhati, Pawan Kumar Saini, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia,
Ajai Kumar, K.P. Dubey, V. Lakshmi Narayana, Sharan Thakur,
D.K. Garg, Abhishek Garg, Naveen, S. Gowthaman, Nishe
Rajen Shanker, A. Venayagam Balan, Raj Kumar Mehta,
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Mukesh Verma, Dr. Vipin Gupta, Delhi
D Law Chambers, Dr. Aman Hingorani, Hingorani & Associates,
Rahul Kaushik, A~un Garg, Dr. Kailash Chand, Harish Pandey,
P.N. Puri, Aftab Ali Khan, M.P. Shorawala, J.S. Wad & Co.,
Shree Pal Singh, Kedar Nath Tripathy, P.K. Jayakrishnan, V.
Lakshminaryan, Sharan Thakur, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Shekhar
E G. Devasa, K.B. Muralidhar, Adrash Upadhyay, S.N. Bhat,
Guntur Prabhakar, D. Bharathi Reddy, Dinesh Kumar Garg,
Harsh Vardhan Surana, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Mridula Ray
Bharadwaj, Delhi Law Chambers, V.K. Sidharthan, Madhu
Moolchandani, Rajesh K. Singh, Nikhilesh R., Manoj K. Mishra,
F Shiv Pati, B. Pandey, B. Rajesh, Ranbir Yadav, Anzu K. Varkey,
Padama Laxmi Nigam, Ravindera Kumar Verma, Sushma
Suri, Gopal Singh, Chandan Kumar, Rajesh Prasad Singh, Atul
Jha, Dharmendra Kumar, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Amitesh
Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Singh, Navin Prakash, Sansriti
G Pathak, Gopal Singh, Ugra Shankar, Prasad Neeraj Shekhar,
Ashutosh Thakur, Dr. B. Kalaivannan, Bankey Bihari, Aishwarya
Bhati, Pawan Kumar Saini, B.S. Prasad, V.N. Raghupathy, M.T.
George, Navin Prakash, Rohit Kumar Singh, M.P. Vinod, Bina
Madhavan, Renjith B., Vimla Sinha, Gopal Singh, C.D. Singh,
H S. Chandra Shekhar, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Birendra Kumar
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR
705
Mishra, Tulika Prakash, Sandhya Goswami, Anurag Bisaria,
A
Sarvesh Bisaria, P.C. Sharma, Manu Kant Sharma, S. Usha
Reddy, Lakshmi Raman Singh, S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra,
Dr. P. Nandan, R. Shai, Sanjay Jain, G. Ramakrishna Prasad,
G.N. Reddy, Neeraj Shekhar, Ashwani Bhardwaj, Abhinav
Mukerji, Mohan Pandey, Vivekta Singh, Tarjit Singh, Anil Anti,
B
Kamal Mohan Gupta, Vibha Datta, Makhija, Archi Agnihotri,
Amit Lubhc;iya, lrshad Ahmad, Manoj Sarup & Co., Pragati
Neekhara, Dr. Monika Gosain, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Radha
Shyam Jena, Shibashish Misra, Praveen Swarup, Ramesh
Babu M.R., Vivek,Vishnoi, R.K.S. Yadav, M.R. Shamshad, S.S.
C
Ray, Vaibhav Gulia, Rakhi Ray, N. Gupta, Tarun Gupta, S.
Janani, M.K. Ghosh, S.S. Nehra, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Ajay
Pal, Vishal Yadav, Umang Shankar, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,
Deepti R. Mehrotra, Vibhu Tiwari, Himinder Lal, Kuldip Singh,
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Ajai Kumar Bhatia, Krishana Prakash
D
Dubey, Satyapal Khushal Chand Pasi, Abhishek Atrey, Garima
Prashad, Shrish Kumar Misra, Sanjay Sharawat, Ashok
Panigrahi, Dr. Kailash Chand, K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, B.D.
Sharma, Ashok Kumar Sharma for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Al TAMAS 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
E
F
by the University Grants Commission had a binding effect on
educational institutions being run by the different States and
G
even under State enactments,
3. The University Grants Commission Act was enacted by
Parliament in 1956 inter alia with the object of making provision
for the coordination and determination of standards in
H
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 11 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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.
c
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 Commission for the maintenance and
D 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
E 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.
F
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
G with the provisions 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
H required to give instructions and to define the minimum
JAGDJSH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR
707
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
standards of instructions for the grant of any degree by any
A
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 to national purposes, as may be given to it by
B
the Central Government.
c
7. On 24th December, 1998, the Commission issued a
Notification on revision or 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
D
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
E
Notifications dated 27.7.1998, 22.9.1998, and 6.11.1998.
Clause 16 of the Notification also indicated that the teachers
F
will retire at the age of 62 years, but it would be open to a
University or a college to re-employ a superannuated teacher.
Subsequentiy, 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,
G
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
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 11 S.C.R.
A 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 m~ntioned that at the time of revision
of pay scales of teachers in Universities and colleges, following
B 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
c 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
o 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 age of superannuation of all
persons who were holding posts as on 15.3.2007, in any of the
E 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
F 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
G against posts sanctioned in Centrally-funded higher and
technical education institutions, in order to overcome the
shortage of teachers.
9. The most important development, at the relevant time,
however, was the issuance of a letter by the Central
H
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR
709
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
Government in its Ministry of Human Resource Development,
A
Department of Higher Educ;,~tion, 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
B
Government employees on the recommendation of the Sixth
Central Pay Commission, subject to all "the conditions
mentione'd in· the letter and the Regulations. The State
Governments were given an option to adopt the scheme in its
composite form.
C
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
0
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
F
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:
E
G
"(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 ~he
H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 11 S.C.R.
A
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
B
implementing this Scheme shall be advised by the UGC
to amend their relevant statutes and ordinances in line with
the UGC Rergulations within three months from the date of
issue of this letter."
c
11. Clause (p)(v} of the said paragraph, which is equally
D
E
F
G
H
relevant, is also extracted hereinbelow:
"(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 revision of pay scales
with effect from 1.04.2010.
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR
711
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
(e) Financial assistance from the Central Government shall
A
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
B
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 c
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
D
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 other guidelines shall be implemented by
State Governments and Universities and Colleges coming
E
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."
F
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
G
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.
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 11 S.C.R.
A
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
B has a definite bearing in the appeals filed by Prof. (Dr.) Jagdish
Prasad Sharma, the amended provision, namely, Section 67(a)
is extracted hereinbelow:
c
D
E
F
G
H
"(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 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
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR
713
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
teachers seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation
A
from 62 to 65 years; 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
B
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 c
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
0
in a University. In its 452nd meeting, the Commission took a
consciou~ ~ecision 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
E
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
F
other similar Writ Petitions, wherein claims were made by the
Petitioners under the amended provisions. of the Patna
University Actand Bihar State Universities Act.
'
17. On 6.10.2009, the learned Single Judge allowed the
G
Writ Petitions and held that the State Government had n'o
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 arid other connected LPAs
were·filed by the State of Bihar challenging the aforesaid
H
··•"---·
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 11rS.C.R.
A 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;
B Commission framed. the Regulations of 201 o. · · i
'
1
.
\
'. ,,
'
.
- . -
,.
'
. '
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,.
C of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, which is, whether··
in view of the decision contained in the letter dated 31.12.20081
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
D Section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, the age of
superannuation of teachers working in different Universities and
colleges of Biharwould 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
E
UGC Regulations;. but the different States and institutions .
situated therein would be bound to accept the Scherne, as set
out in the said Jetter of 31.12.2008. As has been mentioned
hereinbefore; the Scheme envisaged in 31.12:2008, in no
F
uncertain -femis, indicates that in case the State Governments
opted to revise the pay scales of teachers and other equivalent
cadres covered under the Scheme, financial assistance from
the Central Government to such State G?vernments~ould be
to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure' involved in ·
the. implementation of the revision. The Scheme also indicates
G that.the State Government which opted for revision of pay .
scales would tiave 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 frorn
H
1.1.200~ to 31.3,?~1 o, and that, thereafter, the entire liability_
/
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR
715
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
on account of revision of pay scales of the University and
A
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 implementing the Scheme
was subject to the conditions that the entire Scheme of revision
B
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. c
modification except in regard to the date qf implementation
and scales o(pay mentioned hereiriabove. 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
D
of the Commission was that the age of the teachers would be
enhanced to 65 years, and ttiat the balance 20% of the
expenditure would have to be bome_by the State from its own
resources till 31"3.2010, and, ttiereafter, the entire burden of
expenditure would h·ave to be borne by the State ... I
.
E
' .
.
"
. . - ., "
.
'
.
'
' .
. 19. It' appears that the States- of West Bengal, Uttar
Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab and Madhya p'iadesh irnplemented
the Scheme without waiting for the UGC'Regulations, which
were framed o~ly on 30.6.2010, whereas the said Sch~me was
F
implemented by the aforesaid States long before the said date.
It is when the reimbursement-of 80% of the expenses was
sought for from' ttie Central Government, that the problems
arose, since in keeping with the composite scheme: the
concerned. States tiad not entiariced the age of superannuation
simultaneously: The Central Government took the stand that· G
since the Scheme in its composite form had not been given
-
'
1 -
-
'
'
-
'
.
-
-
,..... .-
\
'
..
•
•
effect to' by the States concerned; the question. of
reimbursement of 80% of the expenses did not arise. This is
~.
.
. '
·' -
- .
.
-. (';
-·
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 11 S.C.R.
A one of the.core issues, which has arisen in these cases for
decision.
. 20, The ripple effect of the stand taken by the Central ·
Governmentw~s felt all over the country and, accordingly, .·
B matters were moved before.different High Courts which have
ultin:iately come up to this Court for hearing on such common
issues.
·
·
,~ 21. The le~ad case, howeve~. is that cit Prof. (Dr.) Jagdish ·
Pras.ad Sharma, who has,moved against the judgment of the·
C· qivision ~ench 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 Ac~. 1976;· introduced by the Amendment Act of
D 2006, ~nd Section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act;
197?. introduced by the Bihar State Universities (Amendment)
Act, 2006, which has been reproduced hereinabove. Learned
counsel. for the Appella.nts has claimed that although in the first ·
part of the two amended provisions, it has been indieated that
E 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 coriditiori that the date of retirement of a
teaching employee would be the.