IMPORTANT POINT
Where the scheme formulated itself gives the discretion to the State Government and where the State Government uses that discretion to accept a part of the scheme and not the whole thereof, it would be perfectly within the powers of the State Government not to accept the suggestion made by the scheme to increase the age of superannuation.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — Age of Superannuation — Decision of State Government to restrict the age and not to increase it to 60 or as the case may be 62 — Writ petitions filed by those serving in the capacity as Lecturers, Professors, Readers, Librarians etc. in different private colleges — Their claim that their age of superannuation which was hitherto 58 or 60 years, as the case may be, should be raised to 62 years — Petitioners asserted that decision of Government of India in its UGC Scheme, communication No. F.1.22/97-U.I. dated 27-7-1998 suggesting age of superannuation as 62 years was mandatory and binding vis-a-vis the colleges/universities — On 29-6-1999, State of Andhra Pradesh passed the GOMS 208 stating that there should be no change in the age of superannuation as existing now and it shall be retained at 58 years to the college teachers and 60 years for the university teachers — High Court dismissed writ petitions holding that UGC scheme suggesting raise in age of superannuation is not a scheme which is statutorily binding either on the State Government or the different universities — Whether State Government was justified in not increasing age of superannuation — (Yes) — It is not for this Court to formulate a policy as to what the age of retirement should be.
       Held : The scheme was voluntary and it was upto the State Governments to accept or not to accept the scheme. Again even if the State Government accepted a part of the scheme, it was not necessary that all the scheme as it was, had to be accepted by the State Government. In fact the subsequent developments suggest that the State Government has not chosen to accept the scheme in full inasmuch as it has not accepted the suggestions on the part of the UGC to increase the age of superannuation. (Para 14)
       In our opinion, the communications even if they could be heightened to the pedestal of a legislation or as the case may be, a policy decision under Article 73 of the Constitution, they would have to be read as they appear and a plain reading is good enough to show that the Central Government or as the case may be UGC also did not introduce the element of compulsion vis-a-vis the State Government and the Universities. We, therefore, do not find any justification in going to the Entries and in examining as to whether the scheme was binding, particularly when the specific words of the scheme did not suggest it to be binding and specifically suggest it to be voluntary. (Para 15)
       Where the scheme itself gives the discretion to the State Government and where the State Government uses that discretion to accept a part of the scheme and not the whole thereof, it would be perfectly within the powers of the State Government not to accept the suggestion made by the scheme to increase the age of superannuation. (Para 18)
       We again reiterate that it is not for this Court to formulate a policy as to what the age of retirement should be as by doing so we would be trailing into the dangerous area of the wisdom of the Legislation. If the State Government in its discretion, which is permissible to it under the scheme, decides to restrict the age and not increase it to 60 or as the case may be 62, it was perfectly justified into doing so. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

V.S. Sirpurkar,, J. — Several writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court raising a common issue regarding the superannuation age. All the petitioners were serving in different private colleges which were enjoying the grant-in-aid by the Government. They were serving in the capacity as Lecturers, Professors, Readers, Librarians, Physical Education Teachers, etc. Their common prayer in the writ petitions was that their age of superannuation which was hitherto 58 or 60 years, as the case may, should be raised to 62 years. For this they all commonly relied on a communication No.F.1.22/97-U.I dated 27.7.1998. The claim made by the petitioners was that firstly the decision of the Government of India was mandatory and binding vis-a-vis the colleges/universities. This was all the more reiterated in the backdrop that the Central Government was providing financial assistance to the State Government in implementing the scheme of revision of pay scales. It will be better for us to quote the whole letter dated 27.7.1998 since the same happens to be the main and by far the only basis for the prayers made in the writ petitions (unfortunately, the copies of the writ petitions have not been filed before us though there are several appeals):

“Sub: Revision of pay scales of teachers in Universities and colleges following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission:

Madam/Sir,

I am directed to say that in fulfillment of the constitutional responsibility for consideration, determination and maintenance of standards in higher education, the Central Government and the University Grants Commission (UGC) have taken, from time to time, several measures. As a part of these efforts, the Central Government has revised the pay scales of teachers in Central Universities and Colleges thereunder in order to attract and retain talent in the teaching profession. A copy of the letter addressed to the UGC giving details of the revised scales of pay and other provisions of the scheme of revision of pay scales is enclosed.

2. In discharging its constitutional responsibility, the Central Government has decided to continue to provide financial assistance to the State Governments who wish to adopt and implement the Scheme of revision of pay scales subject to the following terms and conditions:

(a) The Central Government will provide financial assistance to the State Governments which have opted for these revised pay scales to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in the implementation of the revision.

(b) The State Government will meet the remaining 20% of the expenditure from their own sources.

(d) The financial assistance, indicated above, would be provided for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000.

(e) The entire liability on account of revision of pay scales, etc., of university and college teachers would be taken over by the State Governments w.e.f. 1.4.2000.

(f) The Central assistance would be restricted to revision of pay scales in respect of only those posts which were in existence and filled up on 1.1.1996.

3. The State Governments, after taking local conditions into consideration, may also decide in their discretion, to introduce scales of pay different from those mentioned in the scheme, and may give effect to the revised scales of pay from January 1, 1996, or a later date. In such cases, the details of the modifications proposed either to the scales of pay or the date from which the scheme is to be implemented, should be furnished to the Government of India for its approval and, subject to the approval being accorded to the modifications, Central assistance on the same terms and conditions as indicated above will be available to the State Governments for implementation of the scheme with such modifications, provided that the modified scales of pay are not higher than those approved under the scheme.

4. The payment of Central assistance for implementation of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 686

Cases Referred (8)