Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. P.D. Gaikwad vs Registrar Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia ... on 21 August, 2014
1
W.P.No.2310/2012
Date: 21/8/2014
Shri C.B. Patne learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.R. Karnik learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri C.S. Ujjainia, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Heard finally with consent.
The petitioner who is working as senior scientist has filed the present petition seeking quashment of orders dated 22/4/10 and 29/7/11.
This court vide order dated 6/3/12 had stayed the order dated 29/7/11 relating to retirement of petitioner.
Counsel for petitioner submits that the orders which have been impugned in the present case were also impugned in WP No. 7586/12 (Dr. V.K. Mishra Vs. Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Gwalior and another) which have been decided by order dated 22/4/14 by quashing the impugned orders. This judgment has been passed on the basis of order of the Principal Seat in WP No. 8646/11 in the matter of Dr. K.G. Choubey Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya and Ors.
Counsel for respondents have not disputed this aspect of the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set has drawn the attention of this Court towards a judgment delivered by the 2 Principal Seat in the case of Dr. K.G. Choubey Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya and Ors (WP No.8646/11).
Paragraph 12 to 15 of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Principal Seat reads as under : "12. From perusal of notesheet (Annexure P9) it is also evident that the issue with regard to financial burden has also been considered consciously and it has been found that for implementing the recommendations of VIth Pay Commission for the period from 01.1.2006 to 31.3.2010 in respect of employees of JNKVV the State Government will have to incur additional financial expenditure of Rs.52.52 crores, out of which Rs.41.72 crores shall be paid by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Rs.10.48 crores shall be paid by the State Government. Similarly, in respect of Rajmata Vijya Raje Scindia Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Gwalior the State Government would incur the financial burden of Rs.40.42 crores out of which Rs.32.65 crores shall be paid by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research whereas the remaining Rs.8.16 crores shall be paid by the State Government. Thus, in respect of both the Universities the State Government shall be required to pay 20% of the amount of additional expenditure for the period 01.1.2006 to 31.3.2010 to the tune of Rs.18.59 crores whereas Indian Council of Agricultural Research shall make available 80% of the said amount i.e. Rs.74.37 crores. It is pertinent to mention here that there is neither rebuttal of averments made in the writ petition referred to supra in the return filed on behalf of the State Government nor any stand has been taken 3 by the State Government that order dated 09/04/2010 does not bind it. It is well settled in law that if an allegation of fact is not denied the same is taken to be accepted. [See:Naseem Bano (Smt.) vs. State of U.P. & others, (1993) Suppl. 4 SCC 46 and Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 230 ] and an executive action may be exercised not only through Council of Ministers but also through an individual Minister. See : State of Karnataka Vs. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 68.
13. However, thereafter, once again by order dated 22.4.2013 the State Government directed for enhancement of age of superannuation of the employees in Agriculture Universities from 62 years to 65 years with effect from 01.5.2013. The said order has been made subject to the order which may be passed by this Court in this bunch of writ petitions. It was further directed that the Agriculture Universities shall take requisite steps for amendment of the statutes. Therefore, in the facts of the case, this Court need not adjudicate the issue with regard to effect of prescription of age of superannuation in the statutes framed by the Universities and the effect of prescription of age of teaching staff in the regulations of University Grants Commission as well as the issue of repugnancy as the State Government itself by order dated 22.4.2013 had directed the Universities to amend the statutes accordingly.
14. From the facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident that the State Government took a conscious decision to accord benefit of recommendations of VIth Pay Commission and to enhance the age of superannuation to the Teachers of Agriculture Universities by order dated 09.4.2010. The 4 aforesaid order was passed after taking into account the provisions of clause 8(p)(v) of the Scheme which provides that in order to avail the financial assistance from the State Government the entire scheme has to be adopted as a whole without any modification. There is no material on record to show that the State Government has not availed any financial assistance from the Central Government after implementation of the Scheme. In other words after having availed the financial assistance from the Central Government for implementation of the scheme and after accepting the recommendations vide order dated 09.4.2010, the State Government had no authority to pass orders dated 22.4.2010 and 22.4.2013 modifying the order dated 09.4.2010. Since the State Government has taken a decision to adopt the scheme on 09.4.2010, therefore, the consequences envisaged in the scheme itself would automatically follow as has been held by the Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra).]
15. Accordingly, the order dated 22.4.2010 is quashed. The order dated 22.4.2013 in so far as it fixes the cut off date as 01.5.2013 for availing the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years in respect of petitioners is also quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of recommendations of VIth Pay Commission as well as the age of superannuation as directed by the State Government vide order dated 09.4.2010. Needless to state, the concerned Universities, namely, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalayay, Jabalpur and Rajmata Vijya Raje Scindia Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Gwalior shall take necessary steps for amendment in the statute for enhancement of age of superannuation in 5 respect of age of teachers as directed by the State Government vide order dated 22.4.2013.
16. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. However, There shall be no order as to costs."
In light of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Principal Seat, the present writ petition is also allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.4.10 and 29.7.11 are hereby quashed. The judgment delivered in the case of Dr. K.G. Choubey Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya and Ors shall be applicable mutatismutandis in the present case also.
C.C. As per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) J U D G E BDJ