Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Dr K Gopala on 1 February, 2025
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO.3835 OF 2019 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU-560 001
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.A. AHMED, AAG A/W.
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
AND:
1. DR. K. GOPALA
S/O LATE SRI. B.V. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS PROFESSOR IN PHYSICS
-
2
DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES
& RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANGOTHRI, MYSURU-570 006
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
No.498, II CROSS, III MAIN ROAD
MARUTI TEMPLE ROAD
SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSURU-570 009
2. DR. P. VENKATARAMAIAH
S/O LATE P.T. PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS VICE CHANCELLOR
KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
No.436, VISHWA MANAVA DOUBLE ROAD
KUVEMPU NAGAR
MYSURU-570 009
3. SRI. K. KEMPEGOWDA
S/O KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS
INSTITUTE OF KANNADA STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANGOTHRI
MYSURU-570 006
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
No.527, 3RD CROSS, 15TH MAIN ROAD
SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSURU-570 009
4. PROF. S.N. HEGDE
S/O SADASHIVA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANGOTHRI
MYSURU-570 006
SINCE RETIRED RESIDING AT
No.2437, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE
MYSURU-570 017
-
3
5. DR. D.A. SHANKAR
S/O LATE D. ASHWATHANARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS PROFESSOR EMERITUS
DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES &
RESEARCH IN ENGLISH
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANGOTHRI
MYSURU-570 006
SINCE RETIRED R/AT No.995
DODDERIMANE, AGNIHAMSA ROAD
KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 023
6. PROF. E. SAMPATH KUMAR
S/O LATE EMBAR KRISHNAMACHAR
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS PROFESSOR IN MATHEMATICS
DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES &
RESEARCH IN MATHEMATICS
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANGOTHRI
MYSURU-570 006
SINCE RETIRED R/AT No.8/1
13TH CROSS, ADI PAMPA ROAD
V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 002
7. PROF. S. BHARGAVA
S/O SRINIVASAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES &
RESEARCH IN MATHEMATICS
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANGOTHRI
MYSURU-570 006
SINCE RETIRED R/AT No.5
II STAGE, GANGOTHRI LAYOUT
SAHUKAR CHANNAYYA ROAD
MYSURU-570 009
8. SRI. H.S. GOPALAKRISHNA
S/O H. SUNDARAM IYER
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
-
4
EARLIER WORKINGAS PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES &
RESEARCH IN MATHEMATICS
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANTOTHRI
MYSURU-570 006
SINCE RETIRED RESIDNG AT
No.746/B, 17TH MAIN ROAD
SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSURU-570 009
9. SRI. S. SYED ABDUL AZEEZ
S/O LATE R. SYAD ABDUL SUBHAN
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS LECTURER
(SELECTION GRADE) IN MATHEMATICS
YUVARAJA'S COLLEGE (A CONSTITUENT COLLEGE OF
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE)
MYSURU-570 006
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
FLAT No.3A, III FLOOR
ROYAL APARTMENT No.5-8
8TH MAIN ROAD, I CROSS
NEW GURAPPANAPALYA
BENGALURU-560 029
10 . PROF. V.B. COUTINHO
S/O BERNARD COUTINHO
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS VICE CHANCELLOR
GULBARGA UNIVERSITY
GULBARGA-585 106
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
FLAT No.202, SERENE MANOR
26, WHEELER ROAD EXTENSION
ST. THOMAS TOWN P.O.
BENGALURU-560 084
11 . PROF. A.M. PATHAN
S/O M.R. PATHAN
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
EARLEIR WORKING AS VICE CHANCELLOR
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY
-
5
DHARWAD-580 003
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
75/1, 3RD FLOOR
RANOJI RAO ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560 004
12 . PROF. M. MUNIYAMMA
D/O M. MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
EARLEIR WORKING AS VICE CHANCELLOR
GULBARGA UNIVERSITY
GULBARGA-585 106
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
FLAT No.3, 11TH CROSS, JAYAMAHAL
BENGALURU-560 046
13 . DR. MRUTHYUNJAYA P. KULENUR
S/O LATE PUTTAPPA KULENUR
RESIDING AT No.3, DAN DEN APARTMETNS
NEAR VIJAYA BANK CRICLE
KUVEMPUNAGARA
MYSURU-570 023
14 . MYSORE UNIVERSITY
CRAWFORD HALL
MYSURU-570 005
BY ITS REGISTRAR
15 . BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANA BHARATHI
BENGALURU-560 056
BY ITS REGISTRAR
16 . MANGALORE UNIVERSITY
MANGALAGANGOTHRI-574 199
BY ITS REGISTRAR
17 . KARNATAKA STATE UNIVERSITIES
AND COLLEGES RETIRED TEACHERS ASSOCIATION(R)
No.959, 2ND MAIN
4TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR
-
6
BANGALORE-560 040
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT
PROF. K. SIDDAGANGAIAH
18 . PROF. K. SIDDAGANGAIAH
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
No.959, 2ND MAIN
4TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040
19 . UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI-110 002
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
20 . KARNATAKA HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCIL
INSTITUTIONS OF PRINTING TECHNOLOGY BUILDING
1ST FLOOR, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R13;
SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R14 &
R16;
SRI. B.R. PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R15;
SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R17 & R18;
SRI. ARAVIND SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R19;
SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R20)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2019 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP Nos. 775-787/2015 (S-R) c/w
WP Nos.49241-49242/2015 (S-RES) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.12.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-
7
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated
22.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.Ps.No.775-787/2015 (S-R) c/w. W.Ps.No.49241-
49242/2015 (S-RES).
2. We have heard Shri. S.A. Ahmed, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants,
Shri. P.S.Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel as instructed by
Advocate Shri. Jayanth Dev Kumar, appearing for
respondents No.1 to 13, Shri. Uday Holla, learned Senior
counsel as instructed by Advocate Shri. Rajendra, appearing
for respondents No.17 and 18, Shri. Rajendra Kumar
Sungay, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.14 to
16, Shri. B.R. Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.15, Shri. Aravind Sharma, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.19 and Shri. Venkata
-
Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.20.
3. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the appellants that the respondents
being retired Professors and Teachers from Universities and
Colleges under the Higher Education, Collegiate Education
and counsels, sought pension revisions in alignment with the
recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Scale Commission
and the UGC Pay Scale. The Government of Karnataka, by
an order effective from 01.01.2006, implemented revised
pay scales and pensions in terms of UGC Pay Scale.
However, grievances arose concerning pension benefits for
retirees before 01.01.2006 and referred the matter to the
Karnataka State Higher Education Council (KSHEC) for
assessment. The KSHEC considered these representations
and recommended extending the revised pension benefits to
pre 01.01.2006 retirees in parity with their counterparts who
retired thereafter. The Government, citing financial
implications, only partially addressed these
recommendations.
-
4. It is further submitted that subsequently, the
respondents filed W.Ps.No.775-787/2015 c/w
W.Ps.No.49241-242/2015, seeking judicial intervention to
enforce uniform pension revisions. The learned Single Judge,
by order dated 22.03.2019, directed the Government to
disburse the revised pensions along with arrears in four
equal instalments, commencing from 01.06.2019. The
judgment was based on the principle of rationality and parity
between pre-01.01.2006 and post-01.01.2006 retirees.
Aggrieved by the judgment and the financial burden, the
Government opted to challenge the order of the learned
Single Judge.
5. It is contended by the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the appellant that while the
Government had implemented the UGC pay scale revisions,
extending parity to pre-01.01.2006 retirees posed significant
fiscal challenges. This appeal emphasizes the Government's
efforts to balance financial feasibility with equitable
treatment of retirees, emphasizing that retrospective
-
financial liability must be approached cautiously to avoid
undue fiscal strain.
6. It is contended that the petitioners in
W.Ps.No.775-787/2015 sought a direction to the
Government of Karnataka for revising their pensions under
the UGC Pay Scales effective from 01.01.2006. Similarly,
the respondents in W.Ps.No.49241-242/2015 challenged
Government Orders dated 24.12.2009, and 24.07.2015,
which denied the extension of UGC Pay Scales to those who
retired before 01.01.2006. The State issued the
aforementioned notifications based on a Union of India
communication dated 31.12.2008. This communication
explicitly provided prospective implementation of the UGC
Pay Scales without retrospective application. The learned
Single Judge ignored this aspect while directing the revision
of pensions for pre-01.01.2006 retirees.
7. It is contended that the learned Single Judge
relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V.
Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India
reported in (1998) 8 SCC 30, concluding that fixing a cut-
-
off date created an artificial classification, violating Article 14
of the Constitution of India. However, the State argued that
such classification is reasonable, as it distinguishes between
in-service teaching faculty and retired faculty, whose
circumstances are materially different. The Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.7802/2019 by dated 04.10.2019 clarifies
that reasonable classification is permissible under Article 14
of the Constitution of India, provided it is based on
intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the
objective sought to be achieved. The State's differentiation
between in-service and retired faculty complies with this
principle and cannot be deemed arbitrary.
8. It is contended that the UGC Pay Scales were
periodically revised for teaching faculty from 01.01.1986,
01.01.1996, and 01.01.2006. The classification based on the
date of retirement is consistent with the settled practice of
revising benefits prospectively. It is trite that settled laws or
practices should not be unsettled by way of any Court order.
It is further contended that in the case of Smt.G.Kalama v.
The Deputy Commissioner Chikmagaluru and others in
-
W.A.No.430/2014 dated 10.03.2016, wherein the
Division bench of this Court, while dealing with Section 5 of
PTCL Act, allowed the appeal tendering settled position
cannot be the unsettled by way of law. The learned Single
Judge failed to consider the substantial enormous financial
burden of Rs.477 Crores arising from retrospective pension
revisions. The State contended that no supporting
documents were required to demonstrate financial hardship,
as the scale of implications was evident from the petitioner's
claims.
9. It is contended that the communication dated
31.12.2008, defined pensions for UGC cadres. For post-
01.01.2006 retirees, Central Government Rules for pension
and gratuity was applied, whereas pre-01.01.2006 retirees
were governed by State Government Rules. The discretion
to extend benefits to pre-01.01.2006 retirees rested with
the State, as recognized under UGC regulations. It is well
settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of the India does not sit in
appeal over an administrative decision. The Courts may
-
examine the decision-making process for legal infirmities but
cannot substitute their judgment for policy determinations
made by the Executive or expert bodies. The State exercised
its discretion reasonably and did not extend UGC pensionary
benefits to pre-01.01.2006 retirees. In the light of the
above, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge,
the appellants are before this Court.
10. In support of the contentions, the learned AAG has
relied on the following decisions:-
• G.N. Hurkadli & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others,
order dated on 01/06/2009 by W.A. No. 343/2000;
• The State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Education
Department & Others v. G.N. Hurkadli, Head Master
(Retd.) & Others, order dated 21/07/2006 on Review Petition
No. 406/2003;
• Professor V. Srinivasan & Others v. The State of
Karnataka, Department of Education & Others, order
dated 01/07/2021 by W.A. No. 23577/2014;
• State of Kerala & Others v. P.V. Mohan & Others, order
dated on 27/11/2024 by W.P. No. 38975/2022 & OP(KAT)
376/2022;
• Jagadish Prasad Sharma & Others v. State of Bihar &
Others, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 633;
-
• Col. B.J. Akkara (RETD) v. Government of India & Others,
reported in (2006) 11 SCC 709;
• R.L. Marwaha v. Union of India & Others, reported in
(1987) 4 SCC 31;
• Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. N.
Subbarayudu & Others, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 702;
• Krishena Kumar v. Union of India & Others, reported in
(1990) 4 SCC 207;
• State of Punjab & Others v. Amar Nath Goyal & Others,
reported in (2005) 6 SCC 754;
• Union of India v. P.N. Menon & Others, reported in (1994)
4 SCC 68;
• Indian Ex-Service League & Others v. Union of India,
reported in (1991) 2 SCC 104;
• State of Karnataka & Others v. Dr. R. Halesha & Others,
reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 1729;
• State of Tripura & Others v. Anjana Bhattacharjee &
Others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1071;
• P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Others, SLP(C)
8547/2022, order dated 06/12/2024;
• Mr. Patil Malligemadu Chandrashekar & Others v. State
of Karnataka & Others, W.P. No. 8888/2020 (S-Res), order
dated 17/02/2023;
• Dr. K. Gopal & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others,
W.P. No. 775-787/2015, order dated 22/03/2019;
-
• United Banks of India & Others v. United Bank of India
Retirees' Welfare Association & Others, reported in (2018)
16 SCC 539;
• Suchet Singh Yadav & Others v. Union of India & Others,
reported in (2019) 11 SCC 520;
• Union of India v. S.R. Dhingra & Others, reported in (2008)
2 SCC 229;
• State Government Pensioners' Association & Others v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 501;
• T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy & Others, reported
in (1999) 3 SCC 414;
• State of Andhra Pradesh & Another v. A.P. Pensioners'
Association & Others, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 161;
• All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association And
Others v. Union of India & Another, reported in 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 664;
• Union of India & Another v. S. Thakur, reported in (2008)
13 SCC 463;
11. It is contended by learned Senior counsel
appearing for respondents No.1 to 13 that the Government
of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development
(Department of Higher Education), formulated a "Scheme of
Revision of Pay of Teachers and Equivalent Cadres in
Universities and Colleges following the Revision of Pay
Scales of Central Government Employees on the
-
recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission,"
based on recommendation made by the University Grants
Commission (UGC). The communication, dated 31.12.2008,
stipulated that the revised pay scales for teachers would be
subject to the provisions of the Scheme and Regulations to
be framed by the UGC in this regard. The Scheme outlined
revised pay scales, service conditions and a career
advancement scheme and provided terms regarding pension
revision. Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka
accepted this Scheme through its order dated 24.12.2009,
implementing the revised pay structure for Teachers,
Librarians and Physical Education Directors in Universities,
Government and aided colleges.
12. It is further contended that on 30.06.2010, the
UGC published, the University Grants Commission (Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other
Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education) Regulations, 2010" in the Gazette of India dated
18.09.2010. These Regulations incorporated the MHRD
-
Scheme of 31.12.2008 at Clause-2. Subsequently, on
25.08.2011, the Minister for Higher Education in Karnataka
referred the matter of implementing the Sixth Central Pay
Commission Pension Scheme for University Teachers, who
retired prior to 01.01.2006 to the KSHEC, constituted under
the Karnataka State Higher Education Council Act, 2010. The
KSHEC, headed by the Minister for Higher Education,
resolved on 16.11.2011 to recommend the extension of the
revised UGC pay scales and pensionary benefits applicable
to Kendriya Vidyalayas and colleges to retired teachers of
State Universities and Colleges who were on UGC pay scales
and had retired prior to 01.01.2006.
13. It is contended that on 08.12.2011, the KSHEC
communicated its recommendation to the Principal
Secretary, Department of Higher Education. However, on
07.01.2013, the Government of Karnataka issued an order
revising pensions only for those who retired on or after
01.01.2006, without addressing the cases of those who
retired prior to that date. Hence, the respondents herein
filed Writ Petitions on 07.01.2015 seeking a direction to the
-
State Government to grant them pensions based on the
revised pay scales introduced by the Government Order
dated 24.12.2009, with effect from 01.01.2006, along with
arrears.
14. It is contended that in the case of B.K.
Sannabommaji and Others v. State and Others dated
12.03.2015, in W.Ps.No.45106-45124/2012, this Court
directed the State to consider the KSHEC's recommendation
in the light of the Sixth Central Pay Commission's
recommendations and other State Government Order
implementing the UGC Pay Scales from 01.01.2006 and pass
a speaking order. A similar direction was issued in the case
of Shri Gangadhar Sangappa Kalburgi and others v.
State and others in W.Ps.No.100115-100306/2015
dated 16.04.2015.
15. It is contended that despite these directions, the
State Government, by order dated 24.07.2015, held that
University Teachers, who retired prior to 01.01.2006 were
not eligible for pensionary benefits under the Sixth Central
Pay Commission Scheme giving following reasons:-
-
(a) Determination of pensionary benefits is
within the employer's discretion;
(b) It is not mandatory to extend the benefits of
the MHRD letter dated 11.03.2010 to teachers
who retired before 01.01.2006;
(c) The State Government exercised its
discretion to exclude these teachers;
(d) Pensionary benefits must maintain uniformity
across all State pensioners;
(e) The Government did not support extending
these benefits exclusively to University teachers;
(f) Granting the benefits could lead to similar
demands from other pensioners;
(g) The financial burden would fall entirely on
the State Government; and
(h) The KSHEC's recommendations were not
binding on the State.
16. It is contended that the Government of India, by
its letter dated 31.12.2008, formulated a comprehensive
"Scheme of Revision of Pay of Teachers and Equivalent
Cadres" based on the recommendations of the Sixth Central
Pay Commission, which included revised pension provisions.
-
While the State Governments have discretion in accepting
such schemes, the Government of Karnataka unequivocally
adopted the Scheme through its order dated 24.12.2009.
This acceptance covered the revised pay structure, service
conditions and other benefits, including pension. The State's
subsequent attempt to exclude pre-01.01.2006 retirees from
the scope of the Scheme contradicts its acceptance and
violates the principles of pensionary law, where any
enhancement in pension benefits applies universally to all
pensioners, irrespective of the date of retirement.
17. It is further contended that the Government order
dated 24.12.2009 explicitly adopted the Scheme as advised
by the Central Government, encompassing revised pay
structure and service conditions, without excluding any
category of teachers, including those who retired prior to
01.01.2006. Operational instructions, rather than eligibility
determination, were the only steps remaining post-
acceptance. In addition, the KSHEC, upon a specific
reference from the State, recommended on 16.11.2011
extending revised pensionary benefits to pre-01.01.2006
-
retirees. This recommendation was supported by this Court's
directions in B.K. Sannabommaji's case (supra), rendering
the State's contention that KSHEC's decisions are non-
binding both untenable and barred by constructive res
judicata.
18. It is contended that the State's reliance on
financial burden as a defense is equally unsustainable; as
such claims require substantiation with evidence. The mere
assertion of fiscal strain fails to meet legal standards,
especially when 19 other States, as evidenced by
Annexures-L to R and also documents filed with memo dated
12.02.2018, are already extending Sixth Central Pay
Commission benefits to all University and College Teachers,
irrespective of their retirement date. The State's argument
that its decision constitutes a policy matter immune from
judicial review is similarly flawed, as policy decisions that
violate constitutional principles and established legal
precedents are subject to scrutiny. Additionally, MHRD
letters dated 15.12.2009 and 11.03.2010, relied upon by the
State, are irrelevant because the respondents herein were
-
already receiving pensions based on UGC pay scales as of
01.01.2006, making Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972, inapplicable.
19. It is contended that these developments
culminated in the writ petition, where the petitioners
(respondents herein) challenged the Government's refusal to
extend revised pensionary benefits under the Sixth Central
Pay Commission to University Teachers, who retired prior to
01.01.2006. The respondents herein contend that the State
Government's decision is arbitrary and contrary to the
principles of equality and fairness in service jurisprudence.
They seek appropriate relief from this Court to rectify the
discriminatory exclusion and ensure parity in pensionary
benefits for all eligible retirees.
20. Shri Uday Holla, learned senior counsel has relied
on the following decisions:-
• State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, reported in (1989) 1 SCC
321;
• Ram Singh & Others v. Union of India, reported in (2015) 4
SCC 697;
-
• Sri B.K. Sannabommaji & Others v. The State of
Karnataka & Others, order dated 12/03/2015 in W.P. Nos.
45106-45124/2012, c/w W.P. Nos. 6518-6538/2015 and W.P.
Nos. 56819-56821/2014;
• Sri Gangadhar Sangappa Kalburgi & Others v. The State
of Karnataka & Others, order dated 16/04/2015 in W.P.
Nos.100115-100306/2015, c/w W.P. Nos. 78465 &
78466/2015;
• Manjushree Pathak v. Assam Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. & Others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 390;
• Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Others,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 655;
• Union of India & Another v. S.P.S. Vains (Retd.) &
Others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 125;
• Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others
v. A. Masilamani, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530;
• The Barium Chemicals Ltd. & Another v. Sh. A.J. Rana &
Others, reported in (1972) 1 SCC 240;
• M/s P.M. Patel & Sons & Others v. Union of India &
Others, reported in (1986) 1 SCC 32;
• State of Mizoram & Another v. Mizoram Engineering
Service Association & Another, reported in (2004) 6 SCC
218;
• All India Judges' Association & Others v. Union of India &
Others, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 288;
• All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association And
Others v. Union of India & Another, reported in 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 664;
-
• Shiv Chander More & Others v. Lieutenant Governor &
Others, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 744;
• State of Rajasthan & Others v. Mahendra Nath Sharma,
reported in (2015) 9 SCC 540;
• The State of Gujarat & Others v. Prabhudas C. Barot &
Others, order dated 23.10.2017 in SLP(C)Nos.25840-
25841/2017;
• People's Union for Civil Liberties & Another v. Union of
India & Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 399;
• Hindustan Construction Company Limited & Another v.
Union of India & Others reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC
1520;
• State of Karnataka & Others v. Karnataka Pawn Brokers
Association & Others, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 363;
• Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala & Others
reported in (2019) 13 SCC 185.
21. Shri P.S. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel has
relied on the following decisions:-
• State of Assam & Another v. Raghava Rajagopalachari,
reported in (1972) 7 SLR 44;
• S.R. Bhagwat & Others v. State of Mysore, reported in
(1995) 6 SCC 16;
• State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chandra Mohan Nigam &
Others, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 345;
• D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India, reported in (1983)
1 SCC 305;
-
• V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India,
Bombay & Another, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 30;
• All Manipur Pensioners Association v. State of Manipur &
Others, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 625;
• State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Mala Banerjee,
reported in (2015) 7 SCC 698;
• M.M.R. Khan & Others v. Union of India & Others, reported
in 1990 (Supp) SCC 191;
• S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India & Others, reported in AIR
1967 SC 1427;
• Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana & Others, reported in
(2013) 16 SCC 293;
• Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat & Others,
reported in (2022) 5 SCC 179;
• U.P. Raghavendra Acharya & Others v. State of
Karnataka & Others, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 630; and
• Subrata Sen & Others v. Union of India & Others, reported
in (2001) 8 SCC 71.
22. We have given our anxious consideration to the
contentions advanced, the materials on record as well as the
precedents relied on. It is an admitted fact that the
Government of Karnataka had accepted the UGC Scheme
and the Pay Scales as recommended by the UGC with effect
from 01.01.2006. By Annexure 'B' - communication of the
-
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of
Higher Education of the Government of India dated
31.12.2008, the Scheme for revision of pay of teachers and
equivalent cadres in universities and colleges, was notified.
The scheme specifically provided for revised pay scale to
teaching and non-teaching posts in Universities and Colleges
under the UGC. Clause 9 of the said communication provides
that the revised pay and revised rates of Dearness
Allowance shall be effective from 01.01.2006 and all other
applicable allowances from 01.09.2008. With regard to
pension, it is stated as follows at Clause 8(g) of the said
communication:-
"8. (g) Pension:
(i) For teachers and other cadres in UGG maintained
Institutions in receipt of pension, the Central Government rules
for pension and gratuity as applicable to Central Government
employees shall be applicable. Recommendations of Sixth Central
Pay Commission in respect of pension for Central Government
employees, including eligibility for full pension 1.e. 50% of
average pay or last pay drawn whichever is higher after 20 years
of qualifying service, shall be adopted for only those teachers and
other cadres who are already on pension in Central
Universities/colleges and other institutions deemed to be
universities coming under the purview of the UGC.
-
(ii) In view of the new pension scheme effective from 1.1.2004,
no new cases of conversion to pension scheme shall be allowed."
23. With regard to applicability of the scheme, clause
8 (p)(v) provided that the Scheme may be extended to
Universities, Colleges and other higher educational
institutions coming under the purview of the State
legislatures, provided State Governments wish to adopt and
implement the Scheme subject to the following terms and
conditions. The terms and conditions are as follows:-
"(a) Financial assistance from the Central Government
to State Governments opting to revise pay scales of
teachers 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 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
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 with effect from 1.04.2010.
-
(e) Financial assistance from the Central Government
shall 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 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 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
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
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."
24. It is contended by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents that the
Government of India had issued a further communication on
15.12.2009 stating that pre 01.01.2006 pensioners would
-
also be placed at the minimum of the corresponding pay-
band of the post held by them with the revised annual grade
pay for calculation of the pension. However, we notice that it
is specified in the said order itself that the orders shall apply
to only those pensioners/family pensioners who were
drawing pension/family pension on 01.01.2006 under the
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This is clear
from the fact that the further communication was issued on
11.03.2010, which reads as follows:-
"I am directed to say that in pursuance of the
recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the
Central Government revised the pension structure of the
Central Government employees with effect from 1.1.2006
vide Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare O.M.
No.F.No.38/37/08- P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008.
Subsequently, this Ministry has issued clarifications vide
its letter of even number dated 15.12.2009 regarding
revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family
pensioners who retired as Readers/Lecturers (Selection
Grade) and equivalent cadres, and Deputy
Registrars/equivalent cadres in Central Universities and
Colleges.
2. The All India Federation of Retired University
and College Teachers Associations (AIFRUCTA) have
represented that the above orders may also be
-
implemented in the State Universities and Colleges. A
copy of the representation dated 23.12.2009 is enclosed
3. State Governments may like to take
action as deemed appropriate for the revision of
pension of teachers in State Universities and
Colleges, who retired prior to 1.1.2006, in the UGC
scales of-pay and for whom pension structures as
applicable to teachers in Central Universities and
Colleges apply." (emphasis provided)
25. It is further contended that several other State
Governments have adopted the pattern followed by the
Central Government and have made available the revised
pension taking note of the revision of pay effected from
01.01.2006 to pre 01.01.2006 pensioners also. However,
the fact situation is that though the Government of
Karnataka had accepted the UGC pay revision in full, no
decision had been taken to grant the benefit of the revised
pay scales to the pre 01.01.2006 pensioners by the State
Government.
26. On the contrary, the State of Karnataka had
taken a specific stand that the decision to grant the benefit
of revised pay to pre 01.01.2006 retirees would involve
additional expenditure which would have to be completely
-
borne by the State Government and that the State of
Karnataka is unable to extend the said benefit to the
teachers and had rejected the positive recommendation of
the Karnataka State Higher Education Counsel on that very
ground. The question that ought to have been considered
by the learned Single Judge, therefore, was simply whether
the UGC Scheme, which did not provide for revision of
pension for pre 2006 retirees could be construed to compel
the State Government to extend the benefit of the revision
with effect from 01.01.2006 to persons, who had already
retired as on the said date.
27. We notice that several arguments are raised by
the appellants and respondents in this batch of writ
petitions. The petitioners are admittedly Teachers, who are
governed by the UGC Regulations and the Pay Revision
Schemes issued by the UGC. There is no dispute that the
Universities in question are receiving aid from the UGC and
are therefore bound by the schemes, which have been
accepted by the State of Karnataka in full. We are of the
opinion that the question as to the rules or the nature of the
-
pension that the petitioners are receiving is not relevant to
the issue which arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal
because the dispute herein is not whether the writ
petitioners are entitled to the benefit of a pension scheme
which stands introduced by the UGC. The scheme or the set
of rules under which the pension is being drawn is not
relevant since it is the same set of rules that governed the
pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees.
28. The questions which arise for our consideration in
this appeal are as follows:-
(1) Was the UGC Scheme notified by communication
of the Government of India dated 31.12.2008, a
composite scheme providing for revision of
pension also as held by the learned Single
Judge?
(2) Does the Revision of pay by the UGC scheme
specifically with effect from 01.01.2006 envisage
a revision of pension of persons, who had
already retired on that date?
(3) Is the recommendation of the Karnataka State
Higher Education Council that revised UGC pay
scales and pension benefits applicable to
-
Kendriya Vidyalayas and Colleges be extended to
the retired teachers of the Universities and
Colleges of the State of Karnataka, who were in
receipt of UGC pay scales and retired before
01.01.2006 binding on the State Government?
29. The decisions which are relied on by the learned
senior counsel appearing for the Writ
Petitioners/Respondents herein are specifically with regard
to the revision of pension on account of either a New
Pension Scheme being accepted or the rules relating to
pension being revised to give better benefits to persons,
who retire after a particular date. The Apex Court has clearly
held that in such circumstances, pensioners form a
homogenous class and cannot be further sub-classified. In
V. Kasturi's case (supra), it was held that where an
amendment enhanced the pension payable or provided a
new formula for calculation of pension, which is more
beneficial, earlier retirees, even those who were ineligible
under the Old Scheme, would be eligible for the benefits of
such new formula or enhancement. However, in the instant
case, the claim raised is for enhanced pension, not on
-
account of any revision of the scheme, rules, or criteria
relating to pension, but simply as the effect of the pay
revision made applicable with effect from a particular date.
30. In U.P. Raghavendra Acharya's case (supra), it
was held that where pay was retrospectively revised with
effect from 01.01.1996, all persons, who retired from
service after 01.01.1996, would also be entitled to the
revision of their pension on account of the retrospective pay
revision, which was already available at the time when they
retired from service.
31. In Subrata Sen's case (supra), it was reiterated
that where the pension is statutory and no depletion of
pension fund is required to be considered, a revised pension
scheme cannot provide a cut off date so as to discriminate
against prior retirees.
32. Further, pointed reliance was placed by Shri.
Uday Holla, the learned senior counsel on the decision of the
Gujarat High Court in The State of Gujarat & Others v.
Prabhudas C. Barot & Others, which has been affirmed by
-
an order of the Apex Court order dated 23.10.2017 in
SLP(C)Nos.25840-25841/2017. However, in the said case
also, we notice that the State of Gujarat had decided to
grant the benefit of pay revision for reckoning of pension to
pre 01.01.2006 pensioners also, by its resolution dated
13.04.2009. Thereafter, clarifications were issued in the
year 2014 restricting the benefits, which was the subject
matter of challenge before the Gujarat High Court.
Construing the resolution dated 13.04.2009 and the
clarifications of 2014, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High
Court Bench had held that the benefit already decided to be
granted could not be taken away by the subsequent
clarifications.
33. The other decisions relied on are either on the
question of the applicability of the UGC Regulations or the
schemes framed by the UGC on their acceptance by the
State Government. The other decisions with regard to the
eligibility for revised pensions are with regard to either
introduction of Pension Schemes or amendment of Pension
Schemes or Rules and their applicability to persons who had
-
retired before the cut off date fixed therein. However, the
instant case relates to entitlement of enhanced pension not
on account of any revision of the scheme, rules, or criteria
relating to pension but simply on account of a pay revision
effected from a particular date. From the materials on
record, we notice that the State of Karnataka had accepted
the pay revision in full, but had not decided at any point in
time to make such pay revision applicable to pre 01.01.2006
retirees. Without such a decision being on record, it is not
possible for the Writ Court to hold that such retirees are also
entitled to the benefit of the pay revision which was
prospectively applicable from a date when they already
stood retired for service. We find no decision having been
relied on answering this specific aspect of the matter. In
none of the cases placed before us by the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners is there a
proposition of law that a pay revision brought into effect
from a particular date amounts to discrimination against
prior retirees. There is also no proposition in any of the
decisions that a revision of pay from a particular date has to
-
be given effect to, to prior retirees to calculate their pension
as well.
34. On the other hand, the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the appellants during the
course of his arguments has succeeded in showing us that
the pension payable to the Writ Petitioners is linked to the
last pay drawn and that there is absolutely no change in the
pension rules or the mode of calculation of pension. In the
instant case all that is involved is a pay revision with an
effective date.
35. Having given our anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced on both sides and the materials placed
on record as well as the precedents relied on, we are unable
to agree with the learned Single Judge that the revision of
pay under the UGC scheme with effect from 01.01.2006 was
a comprehensive scheme governing pension also. The
scheme only provided for revision of pay scales. It was by
communication dated 15.12.2009 that it was clarified that
pre 01.01.2006 pensioners, who were drawing
pension/family pension on 01.01.2006 under the Central
-
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, would be entitled to
revision of pension taking note of the revised emoluments as
well. The writ petitioners themselves have produced
Annexures - L to R documents along with a memo dated
12.02.2018 to contend that other State Governments had
made applicable the revised scales of pay to reckon the
pension of pre 01.01.2006 pensioners as well. It is clear
from the decision of the Guajarat High Court in The State
of Gujarat & Others v. Prabhudas C. Barot & Others,
which has been relied on by the learned counsel appearing
for the private respondents herein that the State of Gujarat
had also passed such orders. It is therefore clear that an
independent exercise of assessing whether pre 01.01.2006
pensioners were entitled to the revision of their pension
taking into account the revision of pay affected by the UGC
was indeed contemplated. We are therefore forced to hold
that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the UGC
scheme notified was a composite scheme comprising of
pension also, cannot be sustained.
-
36. That brings us to the next question whether the
revision of pay affected from 01.01.2006 automatically
envisaged a revision of pension for person, who had already
retired on that date. From a reading of the scheme and the
materials on record as well as the decisions, we are of the
opinion that the said question also has to be answered in the
negative. We find nothing in the Scheme or the orders
produced before us that would support the contention that
persons who retired before the date of effect of the pay
revision are entitled to revision of their pension.
37. The Karnataka State Higher Education Council
Act, 2010 ('Act, 2010' for short) provides for the
establishment of a State Council as a collective of the
Government, Universities, academics and experts for:
"(a) Promoting academic excellence and social justice
by obtaining academic input for policy formulation
and perspective planning;
(b) ensuring autonomy and better accountability of all
institutions of higher education in the State; and
(c) guiding the growth of higher education in
accordance with the socio-economic requirements
of the State."
-
38. The powers and functions of the Council are
provided at Section 5 of the Act, 2010, which reads as
under:-
"5. Powers and functions of the Council.- The
powers and functions of the Council shall be as follows,
namely:-
A. General Functions:-
(i) It shall render advice to the Government,
Universities and other institutions of higher
education in the State;
(ii) It shall co-ordinate the roles of the Government,
Universities and apex regulatory agencies in
higher education within the State;
(iii) It shall evolve new concepts, programmes and
perspective plans for development of higher
education suo moto or on the suggestion by the
Government or requests from Universities or other
institutions in the State;
(iv) It shall monitor the progress of implementation of
the Developmental Programmes of Universities
and colleges taken up in the State with the
assistance of National Regulatory Agencies.
(v) It shall promote co-operation and co-ordination of
the educational institutions among themselves and
explore the scope for inter action with industry
and other related establishment;
(vi) It shall prepare an annual report making self-
appraisal and showing details of its performance;
(vii) It shall suggest measures for the academic and
financial accountability of the Universities and
other Institutions of higher education in the State;
(viii) It shall prepare the annual budget and the audited
statement of expenditure in such manner as may
be prescribed.
-
(B) Academic Functions:-
(i) It shall encourage and promote innovations in
curricular development, restructuring of courses
and updating of syllabi in the University and the
colleges;
(ii) It shall co-ordinate the programmes of
autonomous colleges and monitor their
implementation;
(iii) It shall devise steps to improve the standards of
examinations conducted by Universities and
suggest necessary reforms;
(iv) It shall facilitate training of teachers in Universities
and colleges;
(v) It shall promote and monitor publication of quality
text book, monographs and reference books;
(vi) It shall develop programmes for greater academic
co-operation and interaction between University
and College teachers and to facilitate mobility of
students and teachers within and outside the
State;
(vii) It shall advice on regulation of admission in
Universities, colleges and institutions of higher
education;
(viii) It shall encourage sports, games, physical
education and cultural activities in the Universities
and colleges;
(ix) It shall review periodically, the existing guidelines
and furnish recommendations for regulating
admissions to various courses and for
appointments to the posts of teachers and
teacher-administrators in Universities, colleges
and other institutions of higher education;
(x) It shall prepare an overview report on the working
of the Universities and colleges in the State and
furnish a copy thereof to the Government and
such other authorities as the Government may
specify;
-
(xi) It shall perform such other functions for the
realization of the twin objectives of equality and
excellence in higher education;
(C) Advisory Functions:-
(1) It shall advice the Government,-
(i) regarding the norms, if any relating to the
establishment of new Universities and
colleges besides additional subjects and
departments in the existing Universities and
colleges;
(ii) regarding the Statutes, Ordinances and
Regulations of Universities in the State and
to suggest modification wherever required
to maintain uniformity in the administration
without prejudice to the autonomy for the
academic pursuits;
(iii) on any University, college or institution of
higher education or any other matter
relating to higher education and research
which may be referred to the Council;
(iv) in determining the block maintenance grants
and to lay down the basis for such grants;
(2) It shall perform any other functions necessary for
the furtherance of higher Education in the State.
(D) Powers of the Council.-
(i) It shall prepare a perspective plan for
implementation of the policies, evolve various
programmes and determine the priorities of such
programmes for implementation;
(ii) It shall propose general guidelines for the release
of grants by the Government to Universities and
other institutions of higher education and advise
the Government about the release of such grants
to each University and other institutions of higher
education;
-
(iii) It shall give such directions as may be necessary
for effective functioning of the Executive
Committee in accordance with its objectives;
(iv) It shall frame regulations in accordance with this
Act and the rules made there under;
(v) It shall have such other powers as may be
prescribed for the effective implementation of the
programmes for the furtherance of the objectives
of this Act."
Section 17 of the Act, 2010, provides as under:-
"17. Directions by the Government.- On the
recommendation of the Council, or suo-moto the
Government may, direct any university with such
modification as may be necessary to implement the
reforms in such manner as may be specified therein.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the
time being in force, it shall be obligatory on the part of
the university to implement the directions given by the
Government and to report the action taken to the
Government and the council accordingly. The council shall
review from time to time the compliance by the
universities, of the direction given by the Government."
It is therefore clear that the function of the Council is
essentially policy formulation and perspective planning.
39. Further, the Karnataka State Higher Education
Council being an advisor to the State in the matter of
Education, according to us, cannot dictate the terms
governing the service conditions including pension of retired
-
employees in the absence of any binding provision in the
scheme in question. While their recommendations are
matters on policy may be binding on the State Government,
matters like retrospective revision of pension, which involves
financial implications, cannot be held to be binding on the
Government in the absence of specific provision to that
effect. The third question raised is also answered in the
negative.
40. In the result:-
(i) The Writ Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.Ps.No.775-787/2015
(S-R) c/w. W.Ps.No.49241-49242/2015 (S-RES),
is set aside.
(iii) W.Ps.No.775-787/2015 (S-R) c/w. W.Ps.
No.49241-49242/2015 (S-RES) will stand
dismissed.
Pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
cp*
