LexJAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2013] 11 S.C.R. 696 JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5527-5543 of 2013) B JULY 17, 2013 [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI., SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] C Education/Educational Institutions - Service conditions - A composite Scheme framed by University Grants Commission in exercise of powers under Regulations framed under University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - To revise the pay of teachers and connected staff of the State Universities and educational institutions and to increase their D age of superannuation from 62 to 65 - The States were required to accept the Scheme in composite form, but the acceptance thereof was left to the discretion of the States - States were unwilling to accept the Scheme in its composite form - Giving rise to present litigations - Held: Education E being List Ill subject of VII Schedule of the Constitution, States are at liberty to frame their own laws on this subject and the same will have primacy if it does not encroach upon jurisdiction of Parliament - In absence of any such legislation by the Central Government under Entry 25 of List Ill, the F Regulations framed by way of delegated legislation, has to yield to the jurisdiction of the State - The States, therefore, were not bound to accept or follow the regulations framed by UGC - But if they wish to adopt the Regulations, the States will have to abide by the Conditions laid down by the G Commission - There can be no automatic application of the recommendations made by the Commission, without any conscious decision being taken by the State in this regard - Constitution of India, 1950 - VII Schedule List Ill, Entry 25 - University Grants Commission Act, 1956. H 696 JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v STATE OF BIHAR 697 The Pay Review Committee set up by the University A Grants Commission, submitted its report relating to the revision of pay scales of teachers, qualification for appointment, service and working conditions and promotional avenues of teachers 'in Universities and Colleges. It recommended that the age of superannuation B throughout the country should be 65 years, whether in the State or Central University. Thereafter the Commission in exercise of its powers u/s. 26 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 framed a Scheme. The Scheme indicated that in case the State Governments c opted to revise the pay scales of teachers and other equivalent cadres covered under the Scheme, financial assistane from Central Government to such State Governments would be to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in the implementation of 0 the revisionj and that such financial assistance would be provided from 1.1.2006 to 31.3.2010 and thereafter the entire liability on account of revision of pay scales would have to be taken over by the State Government. The Central assistance for implementing the Scheme was E subject to the conditions that the entire Scheme of revision, together with all the conditions to be laid down by the Commission, by way of Regulations and other guidelines, would have to be implemented by the State Government and Universities and Colleges coming under their jurisdiction, as a composite Scheme, without any F modification. The condition also included the enhancement of the age of superannuation of such teachers to 65 years. However, the acceptance of the composite Scheme was made discretionary. While most of the States were willing to adopt the Scheme, but not G in its composite forms i.e. they were not agreeable to increase in retirement age to 65 and also wanted to shift the liability on Central Government with regard to the increase in pay-scales even after 1.4.2010. • H 698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A The questions, therefore, in the present appeals, writ petitions and transferred cases were whether the Scheme would automatically apply to Centrally-founded institutions, State. Universities and educational institutions and also private institutions at the State level; 8 and that in the process of framing regulations, whether the Commission could alter the service conditions of the employees which were entirely under the control of the States. Disposing of the appeals, petitions and transferred C cases, the Court HELD: 1. Education being a List Ill subject of the VII Schedule to the Constitution, the State Government is at liberty to frame its own laws
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.