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
-
8 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.
-
9
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
-
10 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-
-
11 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
-
12 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
-
13 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;
-14
• 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;
-
15 • 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
-
16 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
-
17 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
-
18 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:-
-19
(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.
-
20 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
-
21 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
-
22 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;
-23
• 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;
-
24 • 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;
-
25 • 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
-
26 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.
-
27
(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.
-
28
(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
-
29 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
-
30 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
-
31 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
-
32 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
-33
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
-
34 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
-
35 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
-
36 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
-
37 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
-
38 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.
-
39
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."
-
40
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.
-
41 (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;
-
42
(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;
-
43
(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
-
44 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*