D.N. Patel, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred for enhancement of age of superannuation for the University teaching staff from 62 years to 65 years in the State of Jharkhand.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that University Grants Commission Regulation, 2010 has been brought into effect with effect from 30th June, 2010 and the Central Government has already enhanced the age of superannuation for the teaching staff from 62 years to 65 years. This has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand and has published as notification (Annexure 7). This notification has been published on 26th December, 2012 and has not been given retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 30th June, 2010. This is the grievance of these two petitioners, as they have already retired from service of the University on 31st July, 2010 and 29th February, 2012 respectively and, therefore, this petition has been preferred by them so that the notification published by the State of Jharkhand enhancing the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years may be given retrospective effect so that their age of superannuation can be enhanced.

3. Counsel for the petitioners is relying upon a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs State of Bihar reported in (2013) 8 SCC 633 especially paragraphs 74, 77, 78 and 79 and has submitted that if the State of Jharkhand is accepting the recommendation of the University Grants Commission, they may be accepted in totality and as a composite structure of the recommendation and, therefore, enhancement of age of superannuation should have been given a retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 30th June, 2010.

4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that powers vested in the State of Jharkhand, which is a sovereign body, has been referred by Schedule VII, List III, Entry 25 of the Constitution of India. Neither any Act nor Rule nor Regulation enacted by the Parliament for enhancement of age of superannuation of the teaching staffs. They are merely recommendation by the University Grants Commission. Every State has a flexibility to adopt date of superannuation as per the finance of the particular State permits. In the wisdom of the State of Jharkhand and as a policy decision of the State, the notification was published by the State of Jharkhand on 26th December, 2012 (Annexure 7), whereby the age of teaching staff has been enhanced from 62 years to 65 years and necessary amendment shall be carried out in Section 67(a) of the of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. Whether to give retrospective effect or not, is a policy decision of the State of Jharkhand and this Court will be slow in issuing a writ of mandamus to the State of Jharkhand for giving retrospective effect to such notification. Even otherwise also, there is no legitimate right vested in the employees for enhancement of the age of his superannuation and there is no public duty vested in the State that the State must enhance the age of superannuation of their teaching staff, hence, no writ of mandamus can be issued upon the State.

5. Counsel for the respondents-State is also relying upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs State of Bihar reported in (2013) 8 SCC 633 especially paragraph 74 onwards. The counsel for the respondents-State submitted that the recommendation of the University Grants Commission can be accepted by the State by publishing a notification from a particular date looking to the financial capacity of the State and the State in its wisdom has published a notification amending Section 67(a) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 enhancing the age of superannuation upto 65 years with effect from 26th December, 2012. If such type of retrospective effect is to be given as per the desire of the petitioners, there will be no end of further retrospectivity of the cut-off dates. There are bound of few persons, where a cut-off date is pres