Holding

The UGC's regulations are not automatically binding on State universities; a State may adopt the composite scheme voluntarily, and only then must it implement the stipulated conditions, including the higher retirement age.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether the University Grants Commission (UGC) could, through regulations under the UGC Act, impose a composite scheme that revised pay scales and raised the retirement age of teachers from 62 to 65 years on State universities and colleges. The petitioners argued that the UGC's recommendation to increase the superannuation age should automatically apply to all institutions, while the State of Bihar contended that education is a List III subject and the States retain plenary power to legislate service conditions. The Court held that, in the absence of a central law under Entry 25 of List III, the UGC regulations are not binding on the States and may be adopted only at the States' discretion. Consequently, a State may choose to accept the composite scheme and must then comply with its conditions, including the higher retirement age; otherwise, the scheme does not take effect. The Court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, allowing the States to decide independently, while permitting those who continued service under interim orders to retain their benefits. The judgment reaffirmed the primacy of State legislation on education matters unless it conflicts with a valid central law.

Issues considered

The extent to which UGC regulations under the UGC Act can bind State universities and colleges.
Whether the increase in the age of superannuation to 65 years under the UGC scheme automatically applies to State institutions.
The constitutional competence of the State under List III (Entry 25) versus the Union under List I (Entry 66) to legislate service conditions of teachers.
Whether the composite scheme offered by the UGC is mandatory or discretionary for the States.
The effect of Section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act and similar provisions in other State statutes on the applicability of UGC regulations.

Legislation cited

Bihar State Universities Act, 1976s. Section 67(a)
Constitution of Indias. Article 309, s. Entry 25 List III, s. Entry 66 List I
Kerala Public Service Commission Act, 1968s. Section 2
Patna University Act, 1976s. Section 64(a)
University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 12, s. 20, s. 25, s. 26, s. 28(r)

Subjects

EducationUniversity Grants CommissionService conditionsAge of superannuationState vs Centre jurisdictionComposite schemePay revisionFederalismList IIIList I

Judgment

[2013] 11 S.C.R. 696

A 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]
D
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 E
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 F
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
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] [742-
F-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 the- C
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;
G
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
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.
Case Law Reference:
c.
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 B
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.
442 of 2011, C.A. No. 5562, 5563, 5564-5566, 5567, 5569-
5573, 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, 5659-
5660, 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.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

AlTAMAS 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. F

2. The common thread running through all these various
matters is the question as to whether certain regulations framed
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.
B
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
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
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 F
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
E
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:
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
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
D 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
E 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
F
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
G 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
H 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:

"(a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
c 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.
D
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:

E 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
F
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."
G 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
H
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. JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 715
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
A judgment of the learned Single Judge. On 18.5.2010, a Division on account of revision of pay scales of the University and A
Bench of the Patna High Court allowed LPA No. 117. of 2010,. college teachers would have to be taken over by the State
filed by the State of Bihar. It is against the said judgment of the Government with effect from 1.4.2010. The fourth and the most
Division Bench that SLP(C) Nos: 18766-18782 were filed by, important condition stipulated by the Commission was that
the Appellants herein in June, 2010. On 30.6.2010, the; payment of Central assistance for implementing the Scheme
B Commission framed. the Regulations of 201 o. · ·i ' 1 was subject to the conditions that the entire Scheme of revision B
. \ ' . ,, ' . - . - ,. ' .'
of pay scales, together with all the conditions to be laid down
18. This brings 'us to the substantial challenge, in these by the UGC, by way of Regulations and other guidelines, would
appeals and connected Writ Petitions and Transferred Cases, have. to be implemented by the State Government and
as has been set out in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment,. Universities and Colleges coming under their jurisdiction, as a
C of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, which is, whether·· composite "scheme, emphasis supplied, without any. c
in view of the decision contained in the letter dated 31.12.20081 modification except in regard to the date qf implementation
issued by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of and scales o(pay mentioned hereiriabove. This entailed and
Human Resource Development,· Government of India, in the included the enhancement of age of such teachers to 65 years.
context of Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act, 1976 and In other words, along with the enhancement of pay, of which .
D Section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, the age of 80%.would be borne by the Commission, the other condition D
superannuation of teachers working in different Universities and of the Commission was that the age of the teachers would be
colleges of Biharwould automatically be enhanced to 65 years., enhanced to 65 years, and ttiat the balance 20% of the
The focus is, therefore, on whether in view of the Scheme • expenditure would have to be bome_by the State from its own
··•"---·
mentioned
. in the aforesaid letter of 31.12.2008, not only
. the resources till 31"3.2010, and, ttiereafter, the entire burden of
Central Universities and colleges, which were bound by the expenditure
E UGC Regulations;. but the different States and institutions . ' . . . .would
" ., " .
h·ave to. be borne by the State...' . I
- '
. E '

situated therein would be bound to accept the Scherne, as set . 19. It' appears that the States- of West Bengal, Uttar
out in the said Jetter of 31.12.2008. As has been mentioned Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab and Madhya p'iadesh irnplemented
hereinbefore; the Scheme envisaged in 31.12:2008, in no the Scheme without waiting for the UGC'Regulations, which
F uncertain -femis, indicates that in case the State Governments were framed o~ly on 30.6.2010, whereas the said Sch~me was F
opted to revise the pay scales of teachers and other equivalent implemented by the aforesaid States long before the said date.
cadres covered under the Scheme, financial assistance from It is when the reimbursement-of 80% of the expenses was
the Central Government to such State G?vernments~ould be sought for from' ttie Central Government, that the problems
to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure' involved in · arose, since in keeping with the composite scheme: the
the. implementation of the revision. The Scheme also indicates concerned. States tiad not entiariced the age of superannuation
G that.the State Government which opted for revision of pay . simultaneously: The Central Government took the stand that· G
scales would tiave to meet the remaining 20% of the additional - since the Scheme in its composite form had not been given
- ' 1 - - ' ' - ' . - - ,..... .- \ ' .. • •
expenditure from its own sources .. The third consideration is that · effect to' by the States concerned; the question. of
such financial assistance would be provided for the period frorn reimbursement of 80% ~.
of the
.
expenses did
. ' not
·' -
arise. This
. is .
o,
H 1.1.200~ to 31.3,?~1 and that, thereafter, the entire liability_
-. ('; -

-· H
/
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 11rS.C.R. JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 715
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
A judgment of the learned Single Judge. On 18.5.2010, a Division on account of revision of pay scales of the University and A
Bench of the Patna High Court allowed LPA No. 117. of 2010,. college teachers would have to be taken over by the State
filed by the State of Bihar. It is against the said judgment of the Government with effect from 1.4.2010. The fourth and the most
Division Bench that SLP(C) Nos: 18766-18782 were filed by, important condition stipulated by the Commission was that
the Appellants herein in June, 2010. On 30.6.2010, the; payment of Central assistance for implementing the Scheme
B Commission framed. the Regulations of 201 o. · ·i ' 1 was subject to the conditions that the entire Scheme of revision B
. \ ' . ,, ' . - . - ,. ' .'
of pay scales, together with all the conditions to be laid down
18. This brings 'us to the substantial challenge, in these by the UGC, by way of Regulations and other guidelines, would
appeals and connected Writ Petitions and Transferred Cases, have. to be implemented by the State Government and
as has been set out in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment,. Universities and Colleges coming under their jurisdiction, as a
C of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, which is, whether·· composite "scheme, emphasis supplied, without any. c
in view of the decision contained in the letter dated 31.12.20081 modification except in regard to the date qf implementation
issued by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of and scales o(pay mentioned hereiriabove. This entailed and
Human Resource Development,· Government of India, in the included the enhancement of age of such teachers to 65 years.
context of Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act, 1976 and In other words, along with the enhancement of pay, of which .
D Section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, the age of 80%.would be borne by the Commission, the other condition D
superannuation of teachers working in different Universities and of the Commission was that the age of the teachers would be
colleges of Biharwould automatically be enhanced to 65 years., enhanced to 65 years, and ttiat the balance 20% of the
The focus is, therefore, on whether in view of the Scheme • expenditure would have to be bome_by the State from its own
··•"---·
mentioned
. in the aforesaid letter of 31.12.2008, not only
. the resources till 31"3.2010, and, ttiereafter, the entire burden of
Central Universities and colleges, which were bound by the expenditure
E UGC Regulations;. but the different States and institutions . ' . . . .would
" ., " .
h·ave to. be borne by the State...' . I
- '
. E '

situated therein would be bound to accept the Scherne, as set . 19. It' appears that the States- of West Bengal, Uttar
out in the said Jetter of 31.12.2008. As has been mentioned Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab and Madhya p'iadesh irnplemented
hereinbefore; the Scheme envisaged in 31.12:2008, in no the Scheme without waiting for the UGC'Regulations, which
F uncertain -femis, indicates that in case the State Governments were framed o~ly on 30.6.2010, whereas the said Sch~me was F
opted to revise the pay scales of teachers and other equivalent implemented by the aforesaid States long before the said date.
cadres covered under the Scheme, financial assistance from It is when the reimbursement-of 80% of the expenses was
the Central Government to such State G?vernments~ould be sought for from' ttie Central Government, that the problems
to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure' involved in · arose, since in keeping with the composite scheme: the
the. implementation of the revision. The Scheme also indicates concerned. States tiad not entiariced the age of superannuation
G that.the State Government which opted for revision of pay . simultaneously: The Central Government took the stand that· G
scales would tiave to meet the remaining 20% of the additional - since the Scheme in its composite form had not been given
- ' 1 - - ' ' - ' . - - ,..... .- \ ' .. • •
expenditure from its own sources .. The third consideration is that · effect to' by the States concerned; the question. of
such financial assistance would be provided for the period frorn reimbursement of 80% ~.
of the
.
expenses did
. ' not
·' -
arise. This
. is .
o,
H 1.1.200~ to 31.3,?~1 and that, thereafter, the entire liability_
-. ('; -

-· H
/
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 11 S.C.R. JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 717
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
A one of the.core issues, which has arisen in these cases for subsequently recommended by the Commission in its 452nd A
decision. meeting, where a conscious decision was ta~en to implement
. 20, The ripple effect of the stand taken by the Central · the Report of the Pay Review Committee recommending the
Governmentw~s felt all over the country and, accordingly, .· age of superannuation to 65 years throughout the country
B matters were moved before.different High Courts which have whether in a State or central University or whether in a college
ultin:iately come up to this Court for hearing on such common or in a University, it was incumbent on the State.Government B
issues. · · to implement the said}e6ommendation of the University Grants
Commission, subsequently endorsed by the Department of
,~ 21. The le~ad case, howeve~. is that cit Prof. (Dr.) Jagdish · Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resouree·Development,
Pras.ad Sharma, who has,moved against the judgment of the· Government of India. ' , '
~ ·

c
'' {

C· qivision ~ench of the Patna High Court on several grounds, .
including the grounds indicated hereinabove. One'of the other 22. Appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha,
grounds taken_ as far as the Patna cases are concerned, is in learned Senior Advocate, submitted that Sectiori .11 of the
regard to the interpretation of Section· 64(a) of the Patna UGC Act provides· that all orders and decisions of the
University Ac~. 1976;· introduced by the Amendment Act of Commission are to be authenticated by the signature of the
D 2006, ~nd Section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act; Chairman. It was submitted that Section 12 of the UGC Act D
197?. introduced by the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) made further provision that it would be the general duty e>f the
Act, 2006, which has been reproduced hereinabove. Learned Commission to take, in consultation with the University or other
counsel. for the Appella.nts has claimed that although in the first · concerned bodies; all such steps as it thought necessaryfor
part of the two amended provisions, it has been indieated that the promotion and coordination of University education and for
of
E the date of retirement a teaching employee 'of the University the determination and maintenance of standatdti, otteaching,
examination and research in the Universities~ Mr. Sinha
E
or college would be the date on which he attains. the age of 62
years, the said condition was purportedly watered down by the . submitted that it would thus be apparent that the Commission
addition of the further coriditiori that the date of retirement of a could take decisions which were independent of its power to
teaching employee would be the. same, which Would be frame Regulations under Section 26 or to issue Notifications
F decided by the University Grants Commission in future: It has under Section 3 of the Act. Mr. Sinha submitted that the State F
been contended that on a construction of the aforesaid of Bihar was, therefore, bound to acknowledge the age of
provision, it is amply clear that though when the amendment was superannuation as 65 years with effect from 31.12.2010 forthe
effected it was the intention' of the Legislature that the age of Appellants.
superannuation should be 62 years, no finality was attached to . 23. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, who
G the same, since the final decision regarding superannuation lay .. appeared in some of the matters, reiterated the submissions G
with any decisi.on that might be taken by the University Grants made by Mr. Sinha and re-emphasized the fact that on
Commission in future. It has been contended that sin.ce a · 7.2.2011, the Government of Bihar had accepted the
decision had been t_aken by the Ministry of Human Resource enhancement of age from 62 to 65 years for those who were
Development as far back on 23.3.2007 to enhance the age of : in service on 30.6.2010. Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that the·
H superannuation from 62 to 65 years, which was also iud~ment of the Division Bench impugned in these proceedings · H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 11 S.C.R. JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 717
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
A one of the.core issues, which has arisen in these cases for subsequently recommended by the Commission in its 452nd A
decision. meeting, where a conscious decision was ta~en to implement
. 20, The ripple effect of the stand taken by the Central · the Report of the Pay Review Committee recommending the
Governmentw~s felt all over the country and, accordingly, .· age of superannuation to 65 years throughout the country
B matters were moved before.different High Courts which have whether in a State or central University or whether in a college
ultin:iately come up to this Court for hearing on such common or in a University, it was incumbent on the State.Government B
issues. · · to implement the said}e6ommendation of the University Grants
Commission, subsequently endorsed by the Department of
,~ 21. The le~ad case, howeve~. is that cit Prof. (Dr.) Jagdish · Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resouree·Development,
Pras.ad Sharma, who has,moved against the judgment of the· Government of India. ' , '
~ ·

c
'' {

C· qivision ~ench of the Patna High Court on several grounds, .
including the grounds indicated hereinabove. One'of the other 22. Appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha,
grounds taken_ as far as the Patna cases are concerned, is in learned Senior Advocate, submitted that Sectiori .11 of the
regard to the interpretation of Section· 64(a) of the Patna UGC Act provides· that all orders and decisions of the
University Ac~. 1976;· introduced by the Amendment Act of Commission are to be authenticated by the signature of the
D 2006, ~nd Section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act; Chairman. It was submitted that Section 12 of the UGC Act D
197?. introduced by the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) made further provision that it would be the general duty e>f the
Act, 2006, which has been reproduced hereinabove. Learned Commission to take, in consultation with the University or other
counsel. for the Appella.nts has claimed that although in the first · concerned bodies; all such steps as it thought necessaryfor
part of the two amended provisions, it has been indieated that the promotion and coordination of University education and for
of
E the date of retirement a teaching employee 'of the University the determination and maintenance of standatdti, otteaching,
examination and research in the Universities~ Mr. Sinha
E
or college would be the date on which he attains. the age of 62
years, the said condition was purportedly watered down by the . submitted that it would thus be apparent that the Commission
addition of the further coriditiori that the date of retirement of a could take decisions which were independent of its power to
teaching employee would be the. same, which Would be frame Regulations under Section 26 or to issue Notifications
F decided by the University Grants Commission in future: It has under Section 3 of the Act. Mr. Sinha submitted that the State F
been contended that on a construction of the aforesaid of Bihar was, therefore, bound to acknowledge the age of
provision, it is amply clear that though when the amendment was superannuation as 65 years with effect from 31.12.2010 forthe
effected it was the intention' of the Legislature that the age of Appellants.
superannuation should be 62 years, no finality was attached to . 23. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, who
G the same, since the final decision regarding superannuation lay .. appeared in some of the matters, reiterated the submissions G
with any decisi.on that might be taken by the University Grants made by Mr. Sinha and re-emphasized the fact that on
Commission in future. It has been contended that sin.ce a · 7.2.2011, the Government of Bihar had accepted the
decision had been t_aken by the Ministry of Human Resource enhancement of age from 62 to 65 years for those who were
Development as far back on 23.3.2007 to enhance the age of : in service on 30.6.2010. Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that the·
H superannuation from 62 to 65 years, which was also iud~ment of the Division Bench impugned in these proceedings · H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.

A does not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, did riot warrant
any interference.

24. The next set of cases related to the State of Kerala with
Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for
B the Appellants in Civil Appeals arising ciut of SLP(C) Nos ..
12990~12992 of 2011. Mr. Venugopal's stand was different :
from those of Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha arid· Mr. Ranjit Kumar, .
learned Senior Advocates, and supported the action of the ,
c·ommission: Mr. Venugopal submitted that the Kerala .
c University Act, 1974, and the Mahatma Gandhi University
Statutes, -1997, inter alia provided for the age of superannuation
at 60 years. In the affiliated colleges, the age of superannuation ·
was fixed ·at 55 years; Mr. Venugopal submitted that the stand
taken by the State of Kerala was a little different from the stand
0 taken by the other States, since there were a large number of .
qualified and eligitle persons who were unemployed and were·
waiting for· employment, who would ultimately fall prey to
frustration if the services of those who had superannuated at
the age of 62 years were to be continued; thereby depriving·
E eligible candidates waiting to be employed. Jn such .
circumstances, the State of Kerala was not interested in
increasing the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 year5.
Referring to the letter of the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India, dated 31.12.2008, Mr.
F Venugopal contended that in all Centrally-funded institutions a
general direction had been given that the age of superannuation
would be 65 years in place of 62 years.

25. Mr. Venugopal further urged that the Regulations made
by the Commission were applicable to Centrally-funded
G institutions and also included by reference the entirety of the
Scheme of.31.12.2008, as part of the Regulations and made
it applicable to State institutions. Mr. Venugopal urged that the ·
UGC Regulations being Central legislation under Entry 66 List
I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, they would have
H
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 719
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
primacy over the executive and State lalflts and the Government A
Order dated 10.12.2010 was liable to be struck down.

26. While referring to the scope of Entry 66, List I of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, Mr. Venugopal referred
to the decision of this Court in the University of Delhi Vs. Raj 8
Singh [(1994) Suppl 3 SCC 516], wherein it was held that the
Regulations of the Commission in the said case would not be
binding on the University of Delhi being recommendatory and
did not impinge upon the University's power to select its
teachers. However, if the University chose not to accept the c
UGC Regulations, it would lose its grant from the UGC.

27. During the course of his submissions, Mr. Venugopal
referred to the order issued by the Government of Kerala in the
Higher Education (C) Department on 10 .12.2010 for
implementation of the UGC Regulations 2010 on minimum D
qualifications for appointment of teachers, other academic staff
in Universities and colleges and measures for the maintenance
of standards in higher education. The Government Order further
provided that the matter had been examined in detail and the
Government was, therefore, pleased to approve and to E
implement the Regulations as such. The Regulations, therefore,
were to come into force from 18.9.201 O on the date of their
publication in the Government of India Gazette. All the
Universities were directed to incorporate the UGC Regulations
in their Statutes and Regulations, within one month from the F
date of the Order. Mr. Venugopal joined issue with the contents
of paragraph 6 of the said Order, which provides that where
there were any provisions in the Regulations inconsistent with
the provisions in the Government Order, read as the first paper,
the said Government Order would override the provisions in the G
Regulations to the extent of such inconsistency. Mr. Venugopal
submitted that executive directions cannot override the statutory
provisions and it was the statutory provisions which would
prevail over such executive directions. Consequently, the UGC
Regulations would, in these cases, prevail over the Orders of H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.

A the Executive government. In this connection, Mr. Venugopal
referred to the decision of this Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah
Vs. Union oflndia [(1989) 2 SCC 541], wherein relying on two
earlier decisions of this Court in B.N. Nagarajan Vs. State of
Mysore [(1966) 3 SCR 682] and Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State
B of Rajasthan [(1968) 1 SCR 111], a Constitution Bench of this
Court in Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar Vs. State of
Maharashtra [(1974) 1 SCC 317], held that in the absence of
legislative Rules it was competent for the State Government to
take a decision in the exercise of its executive power under
c Article 162 of the Constitution. Therefore, an executive
instruction could make provision only for a matter which was
not covered by the Rules and such executive instructions could
not override any of the provisions of the Rules. Accordingly, the
learned counsel submitted that the Government Order dated
o 10.12.2010 was liable to be struck down.
28. Mr. Venugopal also referr~g. to the decision of this
Court in the case of the Gujarat University, Ahmedabad Vs.
Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar [1963 Suppl 1 SCR 112],
E wherein it was inter alia observed as follows:

"The State has the power to prescribe the syllabi and
courses of study in the institutions named in Entry 66 (but
not falling within entries 63 to 65) and as an incident thereof
it has the power to indicate the medium in which instruction
F should be imparted. But the Union Parliament has an
overriding legislative power to ensure that the syllabi and
courses of study prescribed and the medium selected do
not impair standards of education or render the co-
ordination of such standards either on an All India or other
G basis impossible or even difficult. Thus, though the powers
of the Union and of the State are in the Exclusive Lists, a
degree of overlapping is inevitable. It is not possible to lay
down any general test which would afford a solution for
every question which might arise on this head. On the' one
H hand, it is certainly within the province of the State
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 721
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
Legislature to prescribe syllabi and courses of study and, A
of course, to indicate the medium or media of instruction.
On the other hand, it is also within the power of the Union
to legislate in respect of media of instruction so as to
ensure co-ordination and determination of standards, that
is to ensure maintenance or improvement of standards. B
The fact that the Union has not legislated, or refrained from
legislating to the full extent of its powers does not invest
the State with the power to legislate in respect of a matter
assigned by the Constitution to the Union. It does not,
however, follow that even within the permitted relative fields c
there might not be legislative provisions in enactments
made each in pursuance of separate exclusive and distinct
powers which may conflict. Then would arise the question
of repugnancy and paramountcy which may have to be
resolved on the application of the "doctrine of pith and 0
substance" of the impugned enactment. The validity of the
State legislation on University education and as regards
the education in technical and scientific institutions not
falling within Entry 64 of List I would have to be judged
having regard to whether it impinges on the field reserved E
for the Union under Entry 66. In other words, the validity of
State legislation would depend upon whether it prejudicially
affects co-ordination and determination of standards, but
not upon the existence of some definite Union legislation
directed to achieve that purpose. if there be Union
legislation in respect of co-ordination and determination F
of standards, that would have paramountcy over the State
law by virtue of the first part of Art. 254(1 ); even if that
power be not exercised by the Union Parliament the
relevant legislative entries being in the exclusive lists, a
State law trenching upon the Union field would still be G
invalid."

Mr. Venugopal, therefore, contended that the UGC
Regulations would have an overriding effect over the
Government Order dated 10.12.2010 and, in any event, the H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.

- A U.G.C. could not abdicate its authority regarding higher
education to the States.

29. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants in Civil
Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10765-69 of 2011 and
8 learned counsel appearing on behalf of other Appellants, in
relation to the matters relating to the State of Kerala, adopted
Mr. Venugopal's submissions and it was pointed out by Mrs.
V.P. Seemanthini that there was a marked difference between
the 2000 Regulations framed by the Commission and the
C subsequent Regulations of 2010. It was submitted by her that
while the 2000 Regulations did not provide for any age of
superannuation, in the 2010 Regulations, there is a mandate
to the State Government to follow the same.

30. However, appearing for the Appellants in Civil Appeal
D arising out of SLP(C) No. 23275 of 2010, Dr. K.P. Kylasanatha
Pillay, learned Senior Advocate, took a different stand from that
of Mr. Venugopal. He pointed out that the Appellants were all
Selection Grade Lecturers and Readers of Sree Narayana
College, Kollam, an aided institution situated in the State of
E Kerala. Referring to the Scheme formulated by the Central
Government, which also included the question relating to age
of superannuation, Dr. Pillay reiterated that in order to meet a
situation arising out of shortage of teachers in Universities and
other teaching institutions, the age of superannuation for
F teachers in Central educational institutions had already been
enhanced to 65 years. Dr. Pillay urged that the benefits of the
package scheme which was implemented with effect from
1.1.2006, relating to enhancement of age of superannuation to
65 years, should also be made available to the Appellants. Dr.
G Pillay submitted that so long as the Appellants had been
excluded from the Pay Revision of the State Government, as
governed by the UGC Scheme, they had been placed in a
disadvantageous position.

H 31. Appearing for the State of Kerala, Ms. Bina Madhavan,
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 723
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
learned Advocate, contended that under Article 309 of the A
Constitution, the State Government is empowered to frame its
own Rules and Regulations in regard to service conditions of
its employees. Furthermore, Section 2 of the Kerala Public
Service Commission Act, 1968, empowers the State
Government to make Rules either prospectively or B
retrospectively to regulate the recruitment and conditions of
service for persons appointed to the Public Services and posts
in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala. Ms.
Madhavan submitted that under the Kerala Service Rules, 1958,
enacted by the State Government under the proviso to Article C
309 of the Constitution, the age of retirement of teachers in
colleges has been fixed to be 55 years. Subsequently, however,
by G.O.P. No.170/12/Fin. dated 22.3.2012, the age of
compulsory retirement was enhanced to 56 years and the age
of superannuation has been enhanced to 60 years. Ms. o
Madhavan urged that having regard to the UGC Regulations
dated 30.6.2010, a decision was taken to revise the scales of
pay and other service conditions, including the age of
superannuation in Central Universities and other institutions
maintained and funded by the University Grants Commission, E
strictly in accordance with the decision of the Central
Government. However, the revised scales of pay and age of
superannuation, as provided under paragraph 2.1.10 and under
paragraph 2.3.1, will also be extended to Universities, colleges
and other higher educational institutions coming under the F
purview of the State legislature and maintained by the State
Governments, subject to the implementation of the Scheme as
a composite one as contemplated in the Regulations.

32. Ms. Madhavan contended that the State Governments
were not under any compulsion to adopt the UGC Scheme, but G
could do so if they wanted to. Ms. Madhavan emphasized that .
neither the pay scales nor the age of superannuation stood
revived automatically, without the Scheme being accepted by
the State Government. Ms. Madhavan also urged that Section
H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.

A 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, which
empowers the Commission to make Regulations, does not
authorize the Commission to make Regulations in regard to
service conditions of teaching staff in the Universities, including
the age of retirement. According to learned counsel, the ro.le
B of the UGC is only to prescribe academic standards,
qualifications required for the teaching staff, facilities required
in a higher education institutions, etc. Hence, it can in no
circumstances be contended that the rule making power of the
Commission empowered it to prescribe conditions of service
c in relation to State Government employees, which is the
prerogative of the State Government.

33. Ms. Madhavan also urged that in its affidavit filed in
SLP (C) No.10783 of 2011, the Commission had clearly stated
that it would be open to the State Government or other
0
competent authority to adopt the decision or to take any
decision as it considered appropriate in respect of the
superannuation of the teach~rs in higher and technical
education institutions under their purview, with the approval of
E the appropriate competent authority. As a result, there was no
repugnancy between the Regulations framed by the
Commission and the Rules framed by the State Government.
Referring to Section 20 of the UGC Act, Ms. Madhavan
contended that the same provided that the Commission, in
discharge of its functions under the Act, shall be guided by such
F directions on questions of policy relating to national services,
as may be given to it by the Central Government and if any
dispute arose between the Central Government and the·
Commission as to whether a question is or not a question of
G policy relating to national policy, the decision of the Central
Government shall be final. Ms. Madhavan also urged that the
Central Government had by its letter dated 14th August, 2012,
clarified the position and had made it clear that the question
of enhancement of the age of retirement is exclusively within
the domain of the policy-making powers of the State
H
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 725
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
Governments and that the condition of enhancement of the age A
of superannuation to 65 years, as mentioned in the Ministry's
letter dated 31.12.2008, may be treated as withdrawn for the
purpose of seeking reimbursement of the Central share of
arrears to be paid to the State University and College teachers.
According to Ms. Madhavan, the Central Government had itself B
clarified that the Scheme is not a composite one and the word
'composite' is with regard to financial assistance provided by
the Central Government and was not connected with the age
of superannuation which was incidental to the Scheme.
c
34. The other learned counsel appearing for the different
Universities and educational institutions generally adopted Mr.
Venugopal's submissions, but while doing so, added one or
two points of their own.

35. Mr. S.R. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, who D
. appeared for the Appellants in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP
(C) No.16523 of 2011, reiterated Mr. Venugopal's submissions
relating to Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 in List Ill and urged that
the powers under Entry 66 List I were vested in the Central
Government and could not be sub-delegated to the States E
under Entry 25 in List Ill, which, in any event, was not
permissible in law. Mr. Singh contended that the same would
be evident on a reading of Section 120) and Section 27 of the
UGC Act, 1956, which made the Commission the repository
of powers for advancing the cause of higher education in India. F

36. Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar, learned Advocate, who
appeared for the University in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)
No.16523 of 2011 and other batch matters, urged that the
University Statutes provided 62 years as the age of G
superannuation and there was no right available to the
Appellants which could be enforced by a writ of mandamus. Mr.
Chandra Shekhar also submitted that the Commission had no
power to enhance the age of superannuation as a condition of
service. H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.

A 37. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate, who
appeared in SLP(C)Nos.9198-9221/2011 and other matters
relating to the State of Punjab and the Union Territory of
Chandigarh, while adopting Mr. Venugopal's submissions
regarding the binding nature of the UGC Regulations, relied
B upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case
of Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State ofM.P. [(1999) 7 SCC 120),
wherein it was observed that when there was an existing Central
legislation, the same would be binding in the absence of any
other legislation by the States. Mr. Patwalia also urged that the
C Scheme was a composite scheme and ought to have been
accepted in its totality and despite the fact that the State
Government had accepted the grant of 80% of the expenses,
which was part of the composite scheme, it ought to have also
accepted the other part of the Scheme relating to enhancement
D of the age of teachers in the different Universities in Punjab,
from 62 to 65 years. By not doing so, the State had caused
severe prejudice to the teachers who would have otherwise
been entitled to retire at the age of 65 years and not 62 years.
Mr. Patwalia submitted a copy of the Report of the Task Force
E on Faculty Shortage and Design of Performance Appraisal
System published by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India, in July, 2011, and pointed
out that generally across the country on an average about 35%
of the posts of teachers in the different Universities and
F Colleges were lying vacant, which was one of the reasons for
the deterioration of standards of education across the board.
Mr. Patwalia urged that the aforesaid vacancies would indicate
that there was an urgent need for appointment of teachers in
the different schools and colleges across the country, including
G the State of Punjab.

38. The same sentiments were expressed by Dr. Aman
Hingorani, learned Advocate appearing in Civil Appeal arising
out of SLP(C) No.7392 of 2011. Dr. Hingorani reiterated Mr.
Patwalia's submissions that the composite scheme as offered
H by the University Grants Commission could not be split in two
I•
I•
I:
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 727
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
I
I
by the States, and independenfof the control of the Central A
Government, the College in question has to abide by the UGC
Regulations as the same was funded by the Commission. Dr.
Hingorani also urged that the Appellant, Susan Anand, was
made to retire at the age of 60 while the UGC Notification
provided that the age of superannuation would be 62 years. Dr. . B
Hingorani urged that as was held by this Court in Pavai Ammal
Vaiyapllri Education Trust Vs. Government of Tami/ Nadu
((1994) 6 SCC 259], since the institution accepted the UGC
Regulations, it came under its discipline, which fact had not
been taken into consideration in 8. Bharat Kumar & Ors. Vs C
Osmania Unive~ity & Ois: [(2007) 11 SCC 58]. Dr. Hingorani
also urged that though the Appellant's SLP was dismissed and
ttie Appellant had attained the age of superannuation, under the
orders of the High Court, slie was allowed to rejoin her duties
in the College.' It was submitted that her case was required to D
be treated separately from the others on account of the special
facts involved and that having continued in service by virtue of
the Court's cfrders, she was entitled to the benefits of any order
that may be passed in favour of enhancement of the age of
superannuation from 62 to 65 years. .· .E ·

39. Appearing for the State of Haryana; Dr. Monika
Gosain, learned Advocate, restated.what had been stated by
the·other learned counsel that the State of Haryana was not
bound by the UGC scheme as it had not accepted the
F
"composite scheme" of the Commission. Supplementing Dr.
Gosain's. submissions, Mr. P .S. Patwalia, learned Senior
Advocate, appearing for the State of Punjab, submitted that the
letter from the Government of India to all the States made it clear
that unless the c0mposite scheme as offered by the UGC was G
accepted, the payment of money under the Scheme would not
be forthcoming. It was, however, submitted that in some cases,
the Government of Haryana had voluntarily enhanced the age
of superannuation to 65 years and notified to the. colleges
recognized under Section 2(f). .. .
H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2013) 11 S.C.R.

A 40. As .far as the Civil .Appeal arising out of
SLP(C)No.1631 of 2012 and four connected.matters are
i
concerned, Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, learned Advocate,.
appearing for the Appellants, adopted the submissions made

i by Mr: K.K. Venugopal and reiterated the position that despite ·
B having accepted the composite package, the State had not ·

~
· accepted the enhancement of age from 62 to 65 years, causing .
severe prejudice to the Appellants and others similarly situated.
ft
. 41. Similarly, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Advocate,
c appearing for the Appellants in CiyU Appeals arising out of.
• SLP(C) Nos.6915-6923 of2012, adopted Mr. Venugopal's
submissions and also relied on the i:leCision in the case of B.
Bharat Kumar (supra). Ms: Bhati submitted that on behalf of.
. the State of Rajasthan a letter had been written to the Registrar
0 of all the Universities in the State of Rajasthan, indicating that
considering the huge problem of imemployment of youth in the'
State, the State had decided not to increase the age of
superannuation of teachers beyond 60 years. Ms. Bhati referred
io the Report ()f ttie Chaddha Committee, wherein the aforesaid
E stand had been refuted and the said Committee recamniended
that the age of superannuation of teachers should be 65 years·.
on a uniform basis throughout the country, whether working in
a State or Central University or College. Learned counsel urged
that the benefits which had been conferred by the UGC
F Regulations, could not be taken away by a subsequent
legislation. In the other cases relating to the State of Rajasthan, ·
the Petitioner adopted not only Mr. Venugopal's submissions,
but also those made by Ms. Bhati. •

. , 42 .. Leamed counsel a'ppearlng in Civil Appeals arising out
G of SLP(C) Nos.18218-18226 of 2012 arid 21396 of 2012 from
Odisha, also adopted the submissions made by Mr. K.K.
Venugopal and submitted that the UGC scheme having been .
conceived under Entry 66, List I of theSeventh Schedule to ttie,
. Constitution, would have an overriding effect over.the State
H legislation. .·
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 729
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
43. Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Advocate, who A
appeared for the State of Uttrakhand, submitted that the
conditions of service in State universities could not be controlled
by the University Grants Commission and even on receipt of
80% of the expenses to be incurred by the Colleges the State's
powers under the statutes were not taken away. Mr. Dinesh B
Dwivedi submitted in detail with regard to the ramifications of
Entry 66 List I as also Entry 11 of List 11 prior to the 42nd
Amendment and its substitution by way of Entry 25 in List Ill.
The ultimate result of Mr. Dwivedi's submission is that the
statute does not use two different words to denote the same C
thing. Besides the language in the Constitution has to be
understood in a common sense way and in common parlance,
as was observed in the case of Synthetic and Chemicals Ltd.
& Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1990) 1 SCC 109). Learned
counsel also submitted that in the present case, when the D
dominant Legislature has legislated, any incidental
encroachment has to give way. Moreover, no incidental or
ancillary powers could be read into Entry 66 as Entry 32 was
already occupying the filed. Mr. Dwivedi submitted that the
2000 Regulations framed by the UGC were not applicable to E
the Pant Nagar University, since being an agricultural institution,
the standards and norms of the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research would apply. Mr. Dwivedi lastly contended that in
regard to the provisions of Secions 12, 14, 25 and 26 of the
UGC Act, the said provisions could not be read so widely as F
to enable the Commission to ride rough shod over the State
laws. Mr. Dwivedi submitted that the regulations, in so far as
they seek to prescribe conditions of service, including age of
retirement, are illegal and beyond the legislative powers of the
Union or the Commission, in the event they relate to the G
teachers and staff of the State university and institutions. The
2010 Regulations as framed by the UGC could not, therefore,
be enforced on unwilling States in view of the federal structure
of our Constitution.
H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.

A 44. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counselm who
appeared for the Babajan Badesab Nandyal and others, the
Appellants in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.32748-
762 of 2011, submitted that the impugned order was contrary
to the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Annamalai
B University Vs. Secretary to Govt. Information and Tourism
Department & Ors.[(2009) 4 SCC 590] and the University of
Delhi Vs. Raj Singh [1994 Supp. 3 SCC 516], in which this
Court had held that the provisions of the UGC Act were binding
on all the Universities and the Regulations framed by the UGC
C in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of
Section 26 which were of wide amplitude and were mandatory
in nature. He also urged that the Division Bench of the High
Court had failed to notice that the Government of India letter
dated 31.12.2008 had been included as 'Appendix-I' to the
D UGC Regulations, 2010, which made the Scheme provided
therein as statutory and binding. It was also urged that the High
Court had not really considered the provisions of Section 26(g)
of the above Act which empowered the Commission to
regulate the maintenance of standards and the coordination of
E work or facilities in Universities. Learned counsel submitted that
all factors relevant for the purpose of nourishing, sustaining and
enhancing the quality of human resource have been duly taken
note of by the Commission. Mr. Venkataramani submitted that
the question of fixing the date of retirement of a teacher were
F restricted within the framework of University legislation, since
the age of retirement was intrinsically related to establishment
and realization of higher standard and quality of imparting
eduction and could not be confined to parochial aspirations. Mr.
Venkataramani submitted that the UGC Regulations, 2010, are
G binding on the State Governments and the Universities to
enhance the age of superannuation of teachers to 65 years.
Relying on the decision of this Court in the Annamalai
University case (supra), Mr. Venkataramani urged that the
provisions of the UGC Act were binding on all Universities,
H whether conventional or open. It's powers are very broad and
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 731
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
the Regulations framed by it under Section 26 were of wide A
amplitude and even as subordinate legislation they became
part of the UGC Act having been validly made. Learned counsel
also referred to the decision of this Court in Prem Chand Jain
Vs. R.K. Chhabra [(1984) 2 SCC 302), wherein this Court held
that it was well settled that entries incorporated in the Lists B
covered by Schedule Seven are not powers of legislation, but
"field" of legislation.

45. In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.36126 of
2011, Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, learned Advocate appearing C
for the State of Punjab, referred to the letter dated 23.3.2007
written on behalf of the Government of India to the Commission
regarding enhancement of the age of the teachers from 62 to
65 years and urged that the said Scheme was voluntary and
not binding on the State and that when a sufficient number of
0
teachers were available, it would be counterproductive to insist
that the State should be compelled to accept the UGC's option
in its totality when the same has been left to the discretion of
the State by the Regulations themselves. Mr. Chhabra urged
that the conditions of service of teachers in a State were
E
completely within the jurisdiction of the State and such
jurisdiction could not be overridden by the UGC Regulations,
without the consent of the State.

46. In reply to the submissions made on behalf of the
Petitioners and the Appellants in these cases, Mr. Rakesh F
Dwivedi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the UGC,
submitted that after the letter written by the Central Government
on 27. 7 .1998, informing the States regarding the revision of
pay scales and the provision of financial assistance to the
extent of 80% of the additional expenditure for the period G
1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000, whereafterthe entire liability would have
to be taken over by the State Governments, it was upto the
State Governments to take recourse to the scheme as framed.
By another letter dated 27.7.1998, the UGC was informed that
the Central Government had revised the pay scales of teachers H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.

A in the Central Universities on the recommendations of UGC that
the scheme was of a composite nature and all the conditions
of the scheme would have to be fulfilled if the States were to
avail of the offer of financial assistance to the extent of 80% of
the additional expenditure for the period indicated hereinabove.
B However, although, the State of Kerala had issued an order
dated 21.12.1999, accepting the revised pay scales, it
continued to adopt the existing Rules of the State Government,
wherein the.age of retirement remained 55 years. Mr. Dwivedi
reiterated that following the recommendations of the 5th Central
c Pay Commission, the Central Government had, by its order
dated 23.3.2007, revised the age of superannuation of teachers
to 65 years and even reemployment was permitted upto the
age of 70 years. The only catch was that such change would
apply to centrally-funded higher and technical educational
o institutions coming under the purview of the Ministry of Human
Resource Development and the Notification would be issued
by the Commission.

47. While reiterating the submissions made on behalf of
E the Petitioners relating to the UGC Regulations, 2010 and
Clause 2.1 of the Annexures thereto, Mr. Dwivedi urged that
the provisions of the UGC Act, particularly Section 12 thereof,
are not confined to coordination and determination of standards
in institutions for higher education and research but that the
powers vested in the Commission contemplated a larger role
F in regard to the promotion of university education. It was further
urged that the Commission was empowered to give grants, as
it might deem necessary or appropriate, for the development
of Universities and could also recommend measures necessary
for their improvement. Mr. Dwivedi contended that the UGC Act
G is not entirely confined to Entry 66, List I, but it was also entitled
to act under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution. Mr. Dwivedi urged that since
Parliament was competent to legislate both in terms of Entry
66, List I and Entry 25, List 111, it could invoke both the fields of
H
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BlHAR 733
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
legislation. Mr. Dwivedi submitted that a competent legislature· A
could. draw sustenance from more than one. entry. while
legislating: However, the aforesaid question was not required
to be gone into_ since the Commission had made an offer in
the Scheme, which was left to the State to adopt or not to adopt.
Mr. Dwivedi further submitted that with regard to the Concurrent B
field, there was no compulsion either on the Parliament or the
authority created under Central Statutes to exhaustively legislate
or to exercise the enabling power with regard to the Concurrent
field. It would be open to. the Parliament or the Commission
I either to enforce a particular scheme in the State or leave it c I'
1
open for them to adopt the scheme through their laws and Ji
executive orders. In such cases, the State Governments and i'

State Legislatures exercise plenary powers to decide whether 1,,
Ii
the Scheme was to be adopted or not. Mr. Dwivedi submitted fi
'I
that it is also settled law that unless the enabling power is D I
.,
completely expanded, the legislative field in the Concurrent list
remains available to the States.
..
.·~. IJ
- '..j . ' 'I

." . 48. Mr. Dwivedi further urged that different legislations by
different States are inherent in a federal exercise of power. The E
differences arising as a result of federal distribution of power
by the Constitution and exercise of such power by States,
cannot be a ground'to allege discrimination: As was held in S.R.
Bommai Vs. Union of India [(1994) 3 SCC 1], federalism is a
basic feature of the Constitution. In the present case, the UGC
F
Act and the Regulations of2010 and the Scheme of the Central
Government have been made applicable. to all the States
uniformly. In fact, no age of retirement has also been fixed by
the Commission~ Even for Central Universities, the pay scales·
have been revised by the Central Government and the age of
G
superannuation has·been revised to 65 years by the said
Government. The Scheme was also finalized by the Central
Government and it was also the decision of the Central
Government that the State should take their own decisions as
to whether the Scheme prepared by it should be adopted. Mr.
_.; H
./
. 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS - ::[2013] 11 S.C.R
. /. .

A Dwivedi reiterated that the UGC Regulations of 2010 have
notified the Scheme of the Central Government and it has been
left to the discretion of the State Governments to adopt or not
to adopt the same for its Universities, colleges and other
institutions. The only challenge which had occurred is the order
B of the Central Government, vide its letter dated 14.8.2012, in
its Ministry of Human Resource Development, which delinked
the financial assistance from the requirerrient to adopt the
Central Scheme. The Central Government took a decision that
the.discretion of the State Government should not be fettered
c · by the extension of the financial incentive. Accordingly, any
difference which might arise on account of any decision of the
State Government would be on account of the federal scheme
• of the Constitution and not on account of any decision either of
the Central Government or the Commission. · .·< ''
__ , ;.
D
· 49. Mr. Dwivedi submitted that the cases relied upon by
the Petitioners and Appellants were all based on geographical
.discrimination, which had no bearing with the facts of these
cases and neither the UGC Act nor the Regulations of 2010.~
E nor the Scheme of the Central Government, suffers from any"
such infirmity. In this regard, Mr. Dwivedi also placedJfllian~e
on the decision of this Court in T.P. George Vs State Of Kera/a
[1992 Supp (3) SCC 191] and in the A/I India Sainik Schools
Employees' Association Vs. Defence Minister-cum-Chairman
F Board of Governors,' Sainik Schools Society, New Delhi (1989
Supp 1 SCC 205]. Learned counsel submitted that each ~tate
has its. own sovereign plenary power with respect to Its territory
• and the laws of one State could not be held to be discriminatory
with reference to laws of another State: In this regard, Mr.
G Dwivedi referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court
in Javed Vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 8 SCC 369], where the
said principle was considered and the application of Article 14
of the Constitution was negated. .., ·

· 50. Mr. Dwivedi concluded on the note that the age of
H ·retirement has varied from State to State in respect of public

.1
JAGOISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 735
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
employment in State services and this Court has always upheld A
the power of the State to fix the age of superannuation in the
light of conditions prevalent in the States and the provision of
jobs to youth has been upheld to be a valid consideration, as
in the State of Kerala.
B
51. On behalf of Govind Ballabh Pant University in SLP(C)
No.8153 of 2012, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Advocate,
submitted that Section 28(r) of the UGC Act permits the
University to frame Rules with regard to service conditions of
its staff, including the Rules for retirement. Apart from the above, c
it was also pointed out that the grants which are received by
the University are not from the UGC, but from the Indian Council
of Agricultural Research (ICAR).

52. Lastly, coming to the submissions made on behalf of
the State of Rajasthan and the State of U.P., on behalf of both D
the States it was sought to be urged that the UGC Regulations
could not control the power of the State Governments .and/or
the service conditions of its employees as the same are to be
exclusively decided by the Union or the State, as provided in
Article 309 of the Constitution. It was submitted that it had also E
been held in the Osmania University case (supra) that the
fixation of the age of superannuation by the State Government
is well within its jurisdiction and neither the Scheme of the
Central Government nor the UGC Regulations have any binding
effect. F

53. Though, at first blush, the scope of the appeals
seemed to be limited and confined to the question as to
whether the Regulations framed by the University Grants
Commission under Section 26 of the University Grants G
Commission Act, 1956, were binding on the States and State-
funded and other Universities and colleges being run therein,
as the hearing progressed, several other ancillary issues also
came to be raised.
H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.

A 54. As has been indicated hereinbefore, the Central
Government enacted the UGC Act in 1956 to coordinate and
determine standards in universities and towards that end, to
establish a University Grants Commission for taking all steps,
as it thought fit, for the promotion of university education and
B for determination and maintenance of standards of teaching and
research in universities. On 24th December, 1998, the
Commission issued a Notification relating to revision of pay
scales and other service conditions. Thereafter, after the
expressions of a series of views regarding the enhancement
c of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 and from 62 to 65
years, the Central Government in its Department of Higher
Education, wrote to the Secretary, UGC, on 31st December,
2008, with regard to a scheme for revision of pay-scales of
teachers and other equivalent cadres in all the Central
D universities and Colleges and Deemed Universities, following
the revision of pay scales of the Central Government employees
on the recommen?ation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission.

55. One of the common submissions made on behalf of
E the Respondents was whether the aforesaid scheme would
automatically apply to centrally-funded institutions, to State
universities and educational institutions and also private
institutions at the State level, on account of the stipulation that
the scheme would have to be accepted in its totality. As
indicated hereinbefore in this judgment, the purport of the
F scheme was to enhance the pay of the teachers and other
connected staff in the State universities and educational
institutions and also to increase their age of superannuation
from 62 to 65 years. The scheme provides that if it was
G accepted by the concerned State, the UGC would bear 80%
of the expenses on account of such enhancement in the pay
structure and the remaining 20% would have to be borne by
the State. This would be for the period commencing from 1st
January, 2006, till 31st March, 2010, after which the entire
liability on account of revision of pay-scales would have to be
H
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 737
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
taken over by the State Government. Furthermore, financial A
assistance from the Central Government would be restricted to
revision of pay-scales in respect gf only those posts which were
in existence and had been filled up ·as on 1st January, 2006.
While most of the States were willing to adopt the scheme, for
the purpose of receiving 80% of the salary of the teachers and B
other staff from the UGC which would reduce their liability to
20% only, they were unwilling to accept the scheme in its
composite form which not only entailed acceptance of the
Increase in the retirement age from 62 to 65 years, but also
shifted the total liability in regard to the increase in the pay- C
scales to the States, after 1st April, 2010.

· 56. Another anxiety which is special to certain States, such
as the State of Uttar Pradesh and Kerala, has also come to
light during the hearing. In both the States, the problem is one 0
of surplus-age and providing an opportunity for others to enter
into service. On behalf of the State of Kerala, it had been urged
that there was a large number of educated unemployed youth,
who are waJting to be appointed, but by retaining teachers
beyond the age of 62 years, they were being denied such
E
opportunity. As far as the State of U.P. is concerned, it is one
of job expectancy, similar to that prevailing in Kerala. The State
Governments of the said two States were, therefore, opposed
to the adoption of the UGC scheme, although, the same has
not been made compulsorily applicable to thP. universities,
F
colleges and other institutions under the control of the State
authorities.

57. To some extent there is an air of redundancy in the
prayers made on behalf of the Respondents in the submissions
made regarding the applicability of the scheme to the State and G
its universities, colleges and other educational institutions. The
elaborate arguments advanced in regard to the powers of the
UGC to frame such Regulations and/or to direct the increase
in the age of teachers from 62 to 65 years as a condition
precedent for receiving aid from the UGC, appears to have little H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.

A relevance to the actual issue involved in these cases. That the
Commission is empowered to frame Regulations under Section
26 of the UGC Act, 1956, for the promotion and coordination
of university education and for the determination and
maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and
B research, cannot be denied. The question that assumes
importance is whether in the process of framing such
Regulations, the Commission could alter the service conditions
of the employees which were entirely under the control of the
States in regard to State institutions. The authority of the
C Commission to frame Regulations with regard to the service
conditions of teachers in the centrally- funded educational
institutions is equally well established. As has been very rightly
done in the instant case, the acceptance of the scheme in its
composite form has been left to the discretion of the State
D Governments. The concern of the State Governments and their
authorities that the UGC has no authority to impose any
conditions with regard to its educational institutions is clearly
unfounded. There is no doubt that the Regulations framed by
the UGC relate to Entry 66 List I of the Constitution in the
E Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, but it does not empower
the Commission to alter any of the terms and conditions of the
enactments by the States under Article 309 of the Constitution.
Under Entry 25 of List Ill, the State is entitled to enact its own
laws with regard to the service conditions of the teachers and
F other staff of the universities and colleges within the State and
the same will have effect unless they are repugnant to any
central legislation.

58. However, in the instant case, the said questions do not
G arise, inasmuch as, as mentioned hereinabove, the acceptance
of the scheme in its composite form was made discretionary
and, therefore, there was no compulsion on the State and its
authorities to adopt the scheme. The problem lies in the desire
of the State and its Authorities to obtain the benefit of 80% of
the salaries of the teachers and other staff under the scheme,
H '
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 739
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.] •
without increasing the age of retirement from 62 to 65 years, A
or the subsequent condition regarding the taking over of the
scheme with its financial implications from 1st April, 2010.

59. As far as the States of Kerala and U.P. are concerned,
they have their own problems which are localised and stai;id on
8
a different footing from the other States, none of whom who
appear to have the same problem. Education now being a List
Ill subject, the State Government is at liberty to frame its own
laws relating to education in the State and is not, therefore,
bound to accept or follow the Regulations framed by the UGC. C
It is only natural that if they wish to adopt the Regulations framed
by the Commission under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956,
the States will have to abide by the conditions as laid down by
the Commission.

60. That leaves us with the question which is special to the D
State of Bihar, i.e., the effect of Section 67(a) introduced into
the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, by the Bihar State
Universities (Amendment) Act, 2006, and the corresponding
amendments made in the Patna University Act, 1976. Section
67(a) has been extracted hereinbefore in Paragraph 13. While, E
on the one hand, it has been mentioned that 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 62 years, the confusion is created F
by the next sentence which further provides that the date of
retirement of a teaching employee would be the same which
would be decided by the UGC. It has been urged that the said
provision clearly contemplates that in the event of an alteration
resulting in an upward revision of the age of superannuation, G
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 soui;iht to be urged
is that when in regard to Centrally-funded universities, colleges
and educational institutions, the age of superannuation has H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
•
A 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 any discrimination.
The same did not necessitate any separate decision to be
taken by the State and its authorities regarding the applicability
B of the decision taken by the University Grants Commission.

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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F that the Comm;ssion 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
G 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
H that once the Commission had recommended that the age of
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 741
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
superannuation be accepted as 65 years, the State A
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). B

63. Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar, Mr.
Gopal Singh, had in his submissions reiterated the views of the
High Court, i.e., that on mere communication, the revision of
the pay of teachers and increase in the age of superannuation c
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 0
of the different educational institutions in the State.

64. We are inclined to agree with such submission mainly
because of the fact that 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 E
and, in no case, should the period of service of such non-
teach ing employees be extended beyond 62 years. A
difference had been made in regard to the teaching faculty
whose services could be extended up to 65 years in the manner
laid down in the University Statutes. There is no ambiguity that F
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 Regulations having
the force of law is admitted. However, the State Governments
are also entitled to legislate with matters relating to education G
under Entry 25 of List Ill. So long as the State legislation did
not encroach upon the jurisdiction of Parliament, the State
legislation would obviously have primacy over any other law. If
there was any legislation enacted by the Central Government
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.

A 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 Regulation
framed by way of delegated legislation has to yield to the
plenary jurisdiction of the State Government under Entry 25 of
B List Ill.

65. We are then faced with the situation where a composite
scheme has been framed by the UGC, whereby the
Commission agreed to bear 80% of the expenses incurred by
c 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
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
0
accept and/or adopt the said scheme, the States are free to
decide as to whether the scheme would be adopted by them
or not. In our view, there can be no automatic application of the
recommendations made by the Commission, without any
E conscious decision being taken by the State in this regard, on
account of the financial implications and other consequences
attached 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,
F therefore, fail.

66. However, within this class of institutions there is a
separate group where the State Governments themselves have
taken a decision to adopt the scheme. In such cases, the
consequences envisaged in the scheme itself would
G automatically follow.

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
H made on behalf of the respective parties. The several Appeals,
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 743
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
Writ Petitions and the Transferred Case, which involve the same A
questions as consid.ered in this batch of cases, are all
{!ismissed. 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 B
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 c
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 D
these case, parties shall bear their own costs.

K.K.T. Matters disposed of.