IMPORTANT POINTS
Rule 12 of Rules 1999 does not completely repeal Rules 1984 but overrides it. Rule 17 of Rules 2009 make it override the 1984 Rules and do not make any reference to Rules 1999.
Incoherence of reasoning adopted by a Court does not necessarily make the judgment unsustainable.
Article 14 and 16 applies to employment under the State as well as its instrumentalities.
Recommendations of Pay Commission are not binding on the Government or anybody.
Vice Chancellor issuing orders purportedly u/s 14(8) extending scheme of pay revision adopted by State of Maharashtra is superfluous and without any authority of law.
GR dated 12.8.2009 can be construed to be one made u/s 8(3), Universities Act.
Teaching staff of colleges run by appellant would be entitled to revised pay scales in terms of the G.R. dated 12.08.2009.
2009 Rules seeking to make classification of aided institutions for first time, held violative of Article 14.
A law conferring some benefit on a class of people ignoring others who are otherwise similarly situated not to be struck down as a matter of course if the benefits are not repugnant to directive principles.
The appellant entering into settlement with respondents non-teaching staff agreeing to revise pay scales from time to time in tune with revision of the pay scales of the employees of the State. Now they cannot raise the plea of financial constraints.

Headnote:(a) Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Non Teaching Employees Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 – Rule 17 r/w Rule 12, Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (revised pay of non-teaching employees) Rules, 1999 and Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-teaching employees) Rules, 1984 – Rule 12, Rules 1999 not completely repealing Rules 1984 but overriding it – Rule 17, Rules 2009 making it override the 1984 Rules without making any reference to Rules 1999. (Para 25, 28)
       (b) Interpretation – Judgment – Incoherence of reasoning adopted by a Court – Does not necessarily make the judgment unsustainable. (Para 30)
       (c) Constitution of India – Article 29(2), Article 41, and Article 246 r/w Entry 25 of List III and Entries 63, 64 and 65, List I of the Seventh Schedule – “Aid out of State funds” – Entry 25 carried with it co-extensive executive authority authorising the States to establish and administer colleges – So, under authority of Entries 63, 64 and 65, List I Government of India also established educational institutions and entrusted their administration either to the government or some other authority. (Para 33, 44, 45)
       406 US 205 (1972); (1993) 1 SCC 645 – Referred
       (d) Service law – Equality in employment – Article 14 and 16 applicable to employment under the State as well as its instrumentalities – However Article 309 not applicable to employment under instrumentalities but some of the principles underlying the provisions of Part XIV still govern the such employment. (Para 50)
       (1993) 4 SCC 727 – Referred
       (e) Constitution of India – Entry 25, List III, Seventh Schedule – Parliament as well as State legislatures competent to make laws regulating establishment and administration of colleges in public and private sector – Laws made by Parliament regulate only certain aspects of higher education – AICTE Act. (Para 53, 54)
       (f) Service law – Sixth Pay Commission – Only a body for making an assessment of the need to revise the pay structure of the employees of the Government of India and to suggest appropriate measures for revision of the pay structure – Its recommendations are not binding on the Government or anybody – Only meant for administrative guidance of the Government of India which may accept or reject the recommendations either fully or partly – Recommendations become decision of the Government only after its acceptance – Even acceptance by Government of India does not oblige the States to follow it or create any right in favour of the employees – On the basis of recommendations of UGC, Government of India extending benefits of Sixth Pay Commission to certain categories of employees of Central Universities – Policy choice of Government of India – Offering States financial assistance for 5 years for adopting the pay revision – State of Maharashtra revising the pay scales of the cadres specified. (Para 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65)
       (g) Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 – Section 14(8) – Vice Chancellor issuing orders purportedly u/s 14(8) extending scheme of pay revision adopted by State of Maharashtra – Held, superfluous and without any authority of law. (Para 67)
       (h) Administrative law – GR dated 12.08.2009 – Not purporting to be made u/s 8(3), Universities Act – It does not referring to its source of power – But, mere absence of recital of the source of power in our opinion cannot determine the legal status of the instrument or deprive the instrument of its efficacy – Held, GR dated 12.8.2009 can be construed to be one made u/s 8(3), Universities Act conferring legal right on the teaching staff of the affiliated colleges, aided or not – Further held, teaching staff of colleges run by appellant would be entitled to revised pay scales in terms of the G.R. dated 12.08.2009. (Para 69, 71, 72)
       (i) Constitution of India – Article 162 and section 8(3), Maharashtra Universities Act – Power under – Distinction – Statutory authority u/s 8(3) could be abrogated anytime by the legislature – Constitutional authority under Article 162 cannot be abrogated by the State Legislature – Secondly, procedural requirements for the exercise of the power vary depending upon the nature of the source of the power, but the existence of power itself cannot be doubted. (Para 70)
       (1995) 4 SCC 104; (2001) 8 SCC 676 – Referred
       (j) Education law – 1999 Rules not distinguishing between aided or non-aided institutions – 2009 Rules seeking to make classification for first time – Must have nexus with the object sought to be achieved – Mandate emanating from Article 43 being the object of pay revision, classification into aided and unaided institutions has no nexus with the object – No justification in excluding non-teaching employees of unaided educational institutions from benefit of revised pay scales to non-teaching employees of the aided educational institutions – Such classification violative of Article 14, Constitution of India. (Para 74, 75, 76)
       (k) Interpretation of statute – Validity – Any law untenable on the touchstone of Article 14 could be struck down – A law conferring some benefit on a class of people ignoring others who are otherwise similarly situated not to be struck down as a matter of course if the benefits are not repugnant to directive principles. (Para 78)
       (1974) 4 SCC 3; (1972) 2 SCC 788; (1983) 1 SCC 305 – Relied upon
       (l) Administration of Justice – Approbation and reprobation – In earlier round of litigation concerning Fifth Pay Revision after the appellant after losing in High Court as well as in Supreme Court entering into settlement with respondents non-teaching staff agreeing to revise pay scales from time to time in tune with revision of the pay scales of the employees of the State – Now they cannot raise the plea of financial constraints. (Para 88, 89)
       (2002) 8 SCC 481; (2003) 6 SCC 697 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       The first appellant in all these three appeals is a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The first appellant established and has been administering two engineering colleges, one at Nanded and another at Aurangabad in the State of Maharashtra. The first respondent appears to be an unregistered body of persons who are the employees of the first appellant. They are the staff of the abovementioned two engineering colleges belonging either to the category of teaching or non-teaching staff. The details of which are not necessary for the purpose of this case.
       In the year 2002, the first respondent and others (some non-teaching members in the employment of the appellant) approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition praying that the respondent therein (which included the authorities of the State of Maharashtra) be directed to extend the benefits of the revised pay scales as recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission set up by the Government of India to the employees of the appellant herein. The said writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court
       A settlement was reached between the parties.
       After sixth pay commission the State of Maharashtra made a scheme but did not direct the revision of the pay scales of the non-teaching staff of the educational institutions.
       Three writ petitions were filed which were disposed of by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       Appeals are devoid of merit.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The first appellant in all these three appeals is a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The first appellant established and has been administering two engineering colleges, one at Nanded and another at Aurangabad in the State of Maharashtra. The first respondent appears to be an unregistered body of persons who are the employees of the first appellant. They are the staff of the abovementioned two engineering colleges belonging either to the category of teaching or non-teaching staff. The details of which are not necessary for the purpose of this case.

3. In the year 2002, the first respondent and others (some non-teaching members in the employment of the appellant) approached the Bombay High Court by way of a Writ Petition No. 333 of 2002 praying that the respondent therein (which included the authorities of the State of Maharashtra) be directed to extend the benefits of the revised pay scales as recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission set up by the Government of India to the employees of the appellant herein. The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment dated 19th December, 2003 by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court [11. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the Petition will have to be allowed by issuing the following directions.

(1) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, is directed, within a period of three months from today, to enforce the pay-scales in terms of the Rules, and on failure by Respondent No. 2, to make the payment to the non-teaching in terms of the Rules so also to take steps according to law including withdrawal of recognition of the Respondent No. 2 as an affiliated college;

(2) The Respondent No. 3, considering the Affidavit filed before this Court and the terms of recognition, within a period of three months from today, is directed to see that the Respondent No. 2 implements the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission and on failure to do so, to take steps to withdraw the recognition according to law;

Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (Para 14 of the Judgment)] giving various directions to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad (Respondent No. 5 in that Writ Petition).

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the employer carried the matter to this Court in SLP(C) No. 19567-19568 of 2004 which came to be dismissed by an order of this Court dated 24.10.2005.

5. Subsequently, there was a settlement dated 30.1.2006 between the appellant and the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 333 of 2002. The terms of the settlement were reduced to writing whereunder the non-teaching staff (petitioners in W.P. 333 of 2002) of the appellant agreed to waive their right to claim arrears of pay calculated in terms of the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission for the period between January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2000. Correspondingly, the appellant herein undertook to implement future pay revisions [3. The management hereby agrees and admits that, the employees would be eligible for getting the pay and allowances revised regularly for the government employees by the government from time to time and the employees would be eligible for getting the pay and allowances arrived at having merged the 50% dearness allowance into the basic salary Pay of the employees from the month of July, 2006.].

6. The Sixth Pay Commission set up by the Government of India made its recommendations on 24.3.2008. The University Grants Commission (UGC) (a statutory body) recommended extension of the benefit of the revised pay scales under the Sixth Pay Commission Report to the teaching staff of all the Central Universities, deemed universities and universities whose maintenance expenditure is borne by the UGC. Government of India accepted the recommendation and formulated a scheme. Under the said scheme, the Government of India had decided to revise the pay scales of the various classes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 25

Cases Referred (9)