The Tripura High Court dismissed a writ petition against the implementation date of a UGC scheme in the state and held that UGC regulations or schemes cannot be automatically applied in a state without a deliberate decision by the state government, considering the financial and other impacts involved.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner entered is a retired employee of the Government of Tripura who worked in the Higher Education Department initially in the capacity of Assistant Professor of Economics and then Associate Professor of Economics, he retired on 31.07.2017. The instant intra-court appeal has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgement passed by the learned writ court whereby and whereunder the writ petition seeking fixation of pension of the petitioner in the Revised Pay Scale under the 7th Central Pay Commission with retrospective effect from 01.01.2016 was dismissed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the appellant should receive 7th CPC benefits from its start date, 01.01.2016, challenging the State Government's decision to implement it from 01.10.2017. The counsel submitted that this decision overlooks UGC and MHRD recommendations.
In Additional, the learned counsel highlighted that employees who retired between 01.01.2016 and 30.09.2017, like the appellant who retired on 31.07.2017, are receiving lower pensions due to improper pay fixation. He emphasized that pensioners like the appellant are disadvantaged, as their pay hasn't been revised according to the 7th CPC from its recommended start date. The counsel insisted that the State's implementation date of 01.10.2017 should not negate the original effective date of 01.01.2016.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent countered the arguments made by the appellant's lawyer and requested that the court maintain the decision made by the Writ Court, which had previously dismissed the writ petition.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench, upon examining the scheme formulated by the MHRD, specifically turned its attention to proviso (i) of paragraph 16, which stipulates that the scheme shall be applicable to teachers and equivalent academic staff in Central Universities, Colleges, and institutions funded by the UGC. Further scrutiny was given to proviso (iv) of paragraph 16, which provides that State Governments may, following specific terms and conditions, adopt and implement the Scheme for Universities, Colleges, and Higher Educational Institutions under the jurisdiction of State Legislatures. It is expressly stated in proviso (iv) of paragraph 16 that the decision to adopt and implement the scheme, considering other factors and local conditions, rests with the wisdom of the State Governments. Moreover, under clause (iv)(h) of paragraph 16, it is distinctly articulated that for availing central assistance, the regulations and guidelines must be implemented by the State Government Colleges as a composite scheme without any modification, except concerning the date of implementation and pay scales.
The Bench also referred to the notification issued by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Higher Education Department, regarding the Revision of Pay Scales of teachers in the State Universities, General Degree Colleges, and other educational institutions, following the recommendations of the 7th CPC. Upon perusing clause 10(g) of the notification, it becomes unequivocally evident that the State respondents, invoking the authority granted by clause (iv)(h) of paragraph 16 of the communication dated 02.11.2017 from the MHRD, altered the date of effect of the implementation of the Pay Revision Scheme to 01.10.2017. This modification by the State is in accordance with the prerogative conferred by the aforementioned proviso, authorizing them to modify the date of implementation of the scheme. In light of this authorization in the scheme itself, the Bench discerned no error or arbitrariness in the policy decision of the Government to fix the effective date of implementation of the scheme as 01.10.2017, rather than 01.01.2016.
The Hon’ble Court cited a related judgment by the same bench, Dr. Soma Sarkar(Bhattacharya) vs. State of Tripura & Ors. [WA No.94 of 2023, decided on 31.08.2023], which allowed the Bench to contemplate the extent of State Governments' powers in similar circumstances. The Court also considered the legal principle established in Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2013) 8 SCC 633, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that UGC regulations/schemes do not automatically apply in a State without a deliberate decision by the State Government, given the financial implications and other attendant consequences.
The decision of the Court:
In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Sri Biman Behari Goswami vs. The State of Tripura and other
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh
Case No.: WA No.107 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. C.S. Sinha
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Mr. S. Saha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :