Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The petitioner has also filed written submissions as per the liberty granted by this Court. Shri Agarwal relied on AIR 1990 SC 1305 (Miss Raj Soni v. Air Officer in charge Administration and another), to contend that once a composite scheme is introduced by UGC and it is accepted in relation to revision of pay scales, it is not open to the respondents to deny the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation. For this argument, heavy reliance is placed on (2013) 8 SCC 633 (Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others vs. State of Bihar and others). It is argued that the UGC framed the scheme for revision of pay and enhancement of age on 31.12.2008. The same was implemented by State of Madhya Pradesh by issuing the order dated 16.4.2010 (Annexure P/2). This order is issued in the name of Governor of State. The UGC lateron issued the statutory UGC Regulations. However, before said regulation came into being, the Government of MP implemented the scheme in relation to pay scale. It is submitted that the scheme being composite in nature is applicable in its entirety. Once it is accepted by the State Government, it is no more open to the State Government to accept it in bits and pieces. It has to be accepted in toto. The petitioner contended that scheme was optional in nature. Once it is accepted, the Government cannot be permitted to say that it is not accepted in relation to age of retirement. Reliance is placed on the definition of "University", mentioned in the University Grant Commission Act, 1956 (for brevity, the "UGC Act"). By relying on (2004) 2 SCC 510 (Union of India vs. Navin Jindal), it is submitted that executive instructions made by competent authority are not "Law", whereas the regulations issued by UGC are statutory in nature and, therefore, fall within the ambit of "Law". (2006) 9 SCC 630 (U.P.Raghavendra Acharya and others vs. State of Karnataka and others) is relied upon to submit that persons similarly situated cannot be discriminated against. (2014) 8 SCC 682 (Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another) , is also relied for the same purpose. (1988) 3 SCC 354 (Jaipal and others vs. State of Haryana) is relied to contend that principle of equal pay for equal work must be made applicable for the persons discharging similar nature of work.