JUDGEMENT 1. As per Dipak Misra, CJ.Regard being had to the similitude of the contro. versy involved in this batch of letters patent appeals, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. As the grievance has been projected in a common canvass, the facts from CWJC No. 2330 of 2009* which has given rise to L.P.A. No. 117 of 2010 are exposited hereinbelow. 2. The seminal issue that emanates for consideration is whether in the backdrop of the letter dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Department of Higher Education. Government of India in the context of Section 64 of the Patna University Act. 1976 (for brevity. Patna University Act) and Section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (for short the 1976 Act), the age of superannuation of teachers working in different universities and colleges of Bihar would automatically be enhanced to 65 years in view of the decision of the University Grants Commission (for short the UGC). 3. *********** 4. The writ petitioners-respondents no. 1 & 2 herein were to superannuate on 28.2.2009 and 31.3.2009 respectively. On the recommendations of the UGC, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education issued a letter no. F-1-22/97-UI dated 27.7.1998 addressed to the Secretary, UGC conveying the decision regarding the age of superannuation and other terms and conditions of service of teachers. It has been specifically mentioned in the said letter that the age cf superannuation of the university and college teachers would be 62 years and thereafter no extension shall be granted. In view of the above notification, the age of superannuation of teachers in the Patna University was also enhanced from 60 to 62 years by making an amendment in Section 64 of the Patna University Act. Thereafter, the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India vide letter dated 23.3.2007 decided the age of superannuation of all persons who were holding teaching positions on regular employment against sanctioned posts as on 15.3.2007 in any of the centrally funded higher and technical educational institutions under the said Ministry to be enhanced from 62 years to 65 years. The UGC by letter dated 30.3.2007/4.4.2007 circulated the aforesaid letter to the Registrars of all the Central/Deemed Universities as well as the Registrars of the State Universities for information and necessary action. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid information, writ petitions forming the subject matter of CWJCs No. 4823 and 5390 of 2008 were filed before this Court for enhancement of the age of superannuation. This Court did not entertain the said writ petitions and dismissed the same vide order dated 24.6.2008. A similar writ petition filed on behalf of the B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University Senior Teachers Association, being CWJC No. 4843 of 2008, also met with the same fate. The learned Single Judge had declined to allow the relief on the foundation that there was no conscious decision by the UGC for enhancement of the age of retirement in the State Universities to attract Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act and Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act. The Letters Patent Appeals preferred against the said decision did not meet with success. 6. When the matter stood thus as set forth, the UGC in its meeting dated 7th & 8th October, 2008 had taken a conscious decision and on its recommendations, the Central Government had revised the pay scales and enhanced the age of superannuation of the teachers of the Central Universities to 65 years. A notification to the said effect had been issued by the Government of India. A reference has been made to letter no. 1- 32/2006-U.II/U.I(i) issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education on 31.12.2008 which was addressed to the Secretary, UGC with a copy to the Chief Secretaries of all the States wherein the Government of India had extended the benefit of the scheme to the teachers of the Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutions falling under the purview of the State Legislature. Relying on the said letter, it was contended in the writ petition that the UGC recommendation is to be implemented as a package as envisaged in para 8(p)(v)(g) regarding the applicability of the scheme. It is put forth that the age of superannuatic. is an essential component of the package. It is also urged that the UGC since its inception has never prescribed two sets of age of superannuation, one for the Central Universities and the other for the State Universities. It is put forth that the age of superannuatic. is an essential component of the package. It is also urged that the UGC since its inception has never prescribed two sets of age of superannuation, one for the Central Universities and the other for the State Universities. The Central Government having accepted and notified the same, it is obligatory on the part of the State Government and its Universities to issue necessary orders to enhance the age of superannuation to all teachers to 65 years in the light of Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act and Section 64 of the Patna University Act. It was the stand of the writ petitioners that the earlier writ petition was dismissed because no conscious decision with respect to the State Universities had been taken but now it cannot be said that no conscious decision had been taken. Emphasis has been laid to show that the legislative intent is absolutely clear that once a decision has been taken by the UGC to enhance the age, the same has to be given effect to. In this backdrop, a prayer has been made to issue a command of mandamus to the respondents (appellants herein) to enhance the age of superannuation of the writ petitioners and other like teachers from 62 years to 65 years. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State contending, inter alia, that mere communication of the revision of pay of teachers by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education to the UGC would not automatically enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioners. Be it noted, this was the preliminary counter affidavit filed by the State. 8. The Patna University has also filed a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that the University has no jurisdiction to extend the age of superannuation as it comes within the domain of the State Government to implement the UGC scales of pay and age of superannuation and only thereafter the University takes appropriate steps. 9. 8. The Patna University has also filed a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that the University has no jurisdiction to extend the age of superannuation as it comes within the domain of the State Government to implement the UGC scales of pay and age of superannuation and only thereafter the University takes appropriate steps. 9. A reply has been filed to the States counter affidavit by the petitioners stating, inter alia, that the order dated 31.12.2008, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which is a policy decision by the UGC for enhancement of the age of superannuation and the State Government is bound by the legislative mandate under Section 64 of the Patna University Act and Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act.A reference has been made to the Ietter dated 28.2.1999 addressed by the UGC to all the Education Secretaries of all the State Governments to take action to adopt the above Government of India scheme for the State Universities and Colleges and payment of pay scales, enhancement of retirement age and the method of release of arrears. After the said reply came to be filed, the State had filed a detailed return putting forth the stance that the letter of the UGC dated 27.2.2009 bears reference to the Government of Indias letter dated 31.12.2008 for which the Government of India has been requested vide department letter no. 233 dated 25.3.2009 to send the letter to this department. A reply has been filed to the said letter. 10. A further return has been filed that on scrutiny of the communication dated 31.12.2008, it is manifest that the said communication was issued by the Higher Education to the UGC relating to the scheme of revision of the pay scales of teachers in the Central Universities. A decision was taken therein that there would be revision of pay scales of those categories of teachers subject to various provisions of the scheme of revision as contained in the said letter. It is evident from the said letter that it pertains to the teachers of Central Universities and it has been stated that the State Government wishes to adopt and implement the said letter subject to certain terms and conditions. The State Government has not adopted the said scheme as spelt out in the said letter in the light of the recommendations of the Government of India. 11. The State Government has not adopted the said scheme as spelt out in the said letter in the light of the recommendations of the Government of India. 11. A reference has been made to the stand of the UGC in L.P.A. No. 564 of 2008 wherein it has been asseverated that the UGC had not framed any regulation specifying the age of superannuation of the teachers in the State Universities and the Colleges affiliated thereto. It was further stated that the State Government may specify the age of superannuation as 60 years or 62 years or 65 years or any other age as the age of superannuation of the teachers in the State Universities and the Colleges affiliated thereto. It is stated that the communication dated 28.2.2009 can also not be regarded as a decision of the UGC with regard to enhancement of the age of superannuation of teachers of the Universities of Bihar. The said communication on the other hand has simply forwarded a copy of the Government of Indias letter dated 31.12.2008 to the State Governments with the liberty that the State Governments may take action to adopt the above Government of India scheme for State Universities and Colleges and payment of pay-scales, enhancement of retirement age and rebase of 40% of the arrears during the current financial year in accordance with those provisions. It is the stance in the return that on 4.5.2009 when the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge, it was adjourned to apprise the Court as to what decision the State Government has taken for enhancement of the age of superannuation. The Department vide letter no. 457 dated 11.5.2009 requested the UGC to make available the regulations regarding enhancement of the age of superannuation of teachers of the State Universities from 62 years to 65 years. Thereafter, vide letter no. 563 dated 26.5.2009, the State Government requested the UGC to make available the specific decision of the Commission and the grounds of enhancement of the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the UGC letter no. F-3-9/2000 (PS) dated 28.5.2009 simply forwarded a copy of the UGC letter dated 4.4.2007 wherein it has been stated that it would be open to the concerned State Governments to prescribe the age of superannuation of teachers. Thereafter, the UGC letter no. F-3-9/2000 (PS) dated 28.5.2009 simply forwarded a copy of the UGC letter dated 4.4.2007 wherein it has been stated that it would be open to the concerned State Governments to prescribe the age of superannuation of teachers. As set forth, on a perusal of the letter dated 11.5.2009 and letter dated 26.5.2009, it is clear that the State Government had requested the UGC to make available the decision of the Commission for enhancing the age of superannuation but the Commission forwarded a copy of the letter which clearly means that the Commission had taken the decision whatever has been communicated vide letter dated 4.4.2007. It was considered by this Court on earlier occasion. In essence, the stand of the State Government is that the UGC has not yet taken a decision or enhancement of the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years of the teachers of the State Universities. It is contended that in the absence of the decision of the UGC, the provision contained in Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act and Section 64 of the Patna University Act did not come into play and, therefore, the relief as claimed by the petitioners is not tenable in law. 12. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 7th respondent-UGC contending, inter alia, that vide the letter dated 27.7.1998, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, informed the Education Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories regarding revision of pay scales of teachers in Universities and Colleges following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. A suggestion was given that the State Government wishes to adopt and implement the scheme of revision of pay scales subject to certain terms and conditions. In the said letters the government of India had conveyed its decision after taking into consideration the recommendations made by the UGC regarding the revision of the pay scales of teachers in the Central Universities. In paragraph 1(vi), it was specified that the age of superannuation of university and college teachers would be 62 years and thereafter no extension in service should be given. However, it would be open to the university or college to reemploy a superannuated teacher according to the existing guidelines framed by the UGC up to the age of 65 years. In paragraph 1(vi), it was specified that the age of superannuation of university and college teachers would be 62 years and thereafter no extension in service should be given. However, it would be open to the university or college to reemploy a superannuated teacher according to the existing guidelines framed by the UGC up to the age of 65 years. Various other chronological facts have been narrated as to how the steps have been taken by the UGC from time to time. It is asserted that the UGC in exercise of its power conferred under Section 26(1)(e) & (f) read with Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short the 1956 Act) framed the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of teachers in universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulation, 2000 (for short the 2000 Regulation). The 2000 Regulation provided for the age of superannuation. 13. The Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), Department of Higher Education, Government of India vide letter dated 23.3.2007 informed the Secretary, UGC that in the light of the existing shortage in teaching positions in the centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education under the MHRD and in the context of Governments decision to expand the capacities to such institutions for increasing access to higher education and for implementing the policy of reservation for the weaker sections without affecting the number of seats in the unreserved category available through general merit, it has been decided that the age of superannuation of all person who were holding teaching positions on regular employment against the sanctioned posts as on 15.3.2007 in any of the centrally funded higher and technical educational institutions under the Ministry shall be increased from 62 years to 65 years. A reference has been made to paragraph 3 of the said letter to highlight that the enhancement of retirement age would apply only to persons in teaching posts against the posts sanctioned to centrally funded higher and technical educational institutions falling under the purview of the MHRD. The said circular was circulated to the Registrars of all centrally/deemed universities with a request to bring the same to the notice of all the affiliated collges for necessary action. The said circular was circulated to the Registrars of all centrally/deemed universities with a request to bring the same to the notice of all the affiliated collges for necessary action. The clarificatory letter has clearly spelt out that the provisions of the Ministrys letter dated 23.3.2007 would not be applicable to any other categories of employees in such institutions. It is asserted in the counter affidavit that since Patna University is a State University and not funded and maintained by the UGC, the age of superannuation as notified by the MHRD vide letter dated 23.3.2007 is not applicable to the teachers in Patna University and the colleges affiliated thereto. It is further urged that as far as the letter dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India addressed to the Secretary, UGC regarding the scheme to revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in university and colleges following the revision of pay scales of the Central Government employees on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission is concerned, the same was done consequent upon the age of superannuation. It has been mentioned therein that consequent upon the upward revision of the age of superannuation of teachers, the Central Government has already authorized the Central Universities vide Department of Higher Education D.O. letter no. F-1-24/2006-Desk (U) dated 30.3.2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of Vice-Chancellors of Central Universities from 65 years to 70 years. In the said return, it has been clearly stated that the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years is for the teachers of Central Universities and the colleges affiliated thereto and it is open to the State Universities and the colleges affiliated thereto and the concerned State Government to adopt the same. 14 A reply has been filed to the counter affidavit by the 7th respondent stating, inter alia, that the UGC has not framed any regulation as the age of superannuation can never be considered to be an eligibility criterion for any post. It has been, thus, asserted that the UGC desired that there should be enhancement of age. 14 A reply has been filed to the counter affidavit by the 7th respondent stating, inter alia, that the UGC has not framed any regulation as the age of superannuation can never be considered to be an eligibility criterion for any post. It has been, thus, asserted that the UGC desired that there should be enhancement of age. It has been put forth that the UGC in its counter affidavit has not stated that its recommendations were limited only with respect to the teachers of Central Universities and rightly so since the Chadda Commission constituted by the UGC had recommended that the age of superannuation of teachers should uniformly be 65 years. It is averred that the letter dated 31.12.2008 was meant for the Central Universities and Colleges affiliated thereto and the State Governments are required to adopt the same to make it applicable in their States. In other words, it is being stated that the age of superannuation of the teachers of Central Universities has been enhanced and the State Government may adopt the same. It is highlighted that by virtue of the amendments brought in the 1976 Act and the Patna University Act, the retirement age of a teaching employee will be the same as decided by the UGC in future and when the UGC has fairly admitted that it is open to the State Universities and Colleges affiliated thereto to adopt the same, there is a deemed adoption. It is also asserted that the UGC does not frame regulations to take decision and once a decision has been taken, the same has to be respected as the amended provision. When the UGC uses the words may and it is open in the letter dated 27.2.2009, they only indicate that the recommendations are not mandatory but by the amending provisions, the University has made it applicable per se. 15. We have heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General-Ill alongwith Mr. Satyabir Bharti, AC to AAG-III for the appellants, Mr. Binod Kanth, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh and Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents alongwith Mr. Sujit Kumar Sinha, Mr. Raghav Prasad & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned counsel alongwith Mr. Ramchandra Singh, for the University Grants Commission. Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Mr. Anil Singh and Mr. Partha Sarthy, learned counsel appearing for the universities. 16. B.P. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents alongwith Mr. Sujit Kumar Sinha, Mr. Raghav Prasad & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned counsel alongwith Mr. Ramchandra Singh, for the University Grants Commission. Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Mr. Anil Singh and Mr. Partha Sarthy, learned counsel appearing for the universities. 16. The thrust of the matter is whether the UGC has taken a decision to enhance the age. Vide letter dated 4.4.2007, the Joint Secretary of the UGC had communicated to the Registrars of all central and deemed universities as follows: "Kindly find enclosed a copy of letter No. 1-19/2006-U-ll dated 23rd March. 2007 received from the Ministry of Human Resources Development Department of Higher Education regarding enhancement in the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years for teaching positions in centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education for compliance." 17. In the first instance, we may sit in a time machine and refer to the letter dated 23.3.2007. The subject therein relates to enhancement in the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years for teaching positions. in centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said letter read as under: "2. The matter has been reviewed by the Central Government in the light of the existing shortage in teaching positions in the centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education under this Ministry, and in the context of Governments decision to expand the capacities of such Institutions for increasing access to higher education and for implementing the policy of reservations for the weaker sections without affecting the number of seats in the unreserved category available through general merit. Accordingly, it has been decided that (i) The age of superannuation of all persons who were holding teaching positions on regular employment against sanctioned posts as on 15.3.2007 in any of the centrally funded higher and technical education under this Ministry shall be increased from present 62 years to 65 years. (ii) Persons holding such regular teaching positions who have superannuated prior to 15.3.2007 on attaining the age of 62 years but have not attained the age of 65 years may be reemployed against vacant sanctioned teaching positions till they attain the age of 65 years, in accordance with the guidelines framed by the University Grants Commission. (ii) Persons holding such regular teaching positions who have superannuated prior to 15.3.2007 on attaining the age of 62 years but have not attained the age of 65 years may be reemployed against vacant sanctioned teaching positions till they attain the age of 65 years, in accordance with the guidelines framed by the University Grants Commission. (iii) All persons holding teaching positions against sanctioned posts may also be considered for re-employment beyond 65 years and up to the age of 70 years, against sanctioned vacant posts, if such posts are not filled up by regular candidates. However, such re-employments beyond the age of 65 years shall be done only after screening at the age of 65 years, under the extant guidelines of the University Grants Commission. 3. It is further clarified that the enhancement of retirement age as mentioned above and the provision for reemployment, will apply only to persons in teaching positions against posts sanctioned to centrally funded higher and technical education institutions coming under the purview of this Ministry, in order to overcome the shortage of teachers." 18. The said letter came to be interreted in the case of Prof. Dr. Ravindra prasad & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & ors. and other connected matter, 2008(3) PLJR 476 . The learned Single Judge has interpreted the said letter in paras 5 and 6 as follows: "5. In fact, the petitioners reliance is on the letter dated 23rd March, 2007 issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education to the UGC (Annexure-2 to the first writ application) by which the Central Government issued a policy directive to the UGC for enhancement of College Teachers from the present 62 years to 65 years. This, the petitioners urge, is a direction in terms of Section 20 of the UGC Act and binding on UGC as would be apparent from paragraphs of the said communication by which Central Government directs UGC to issue necessary notification in this regard. It is then submitted that UGC by its letter dated 4th of April, 2007, as communicated to the Registrars of all Central/Deemed Universities (Annexure-1 to the first writ application), directed the said Universities to act in accordance with the letter dated 23rd March, 2007 of the Central Government. It is then submitted that UGC by its letter dated 4th of April, 2007, as communicated to the Registrars of all Central/Deemed Universities (Annexure-1 to the first writ application), directed the said Universities to act in accordance with the letter dated 23rd March, 2007 of the Central Government. Copy of this letter of the UGC was marked to the Registrar of the State Universities and all Secretaries of the States. It is, thus, submitted that there being a valid and binding direction by the Central Government to the UGC in terms of Section 20 with regard to increase of age of retirement to 65 years and consequently direction of UGC to the Universities to implement the Central Governments directives, it should be deemed that so far as Teachers of Universities in Bihar are concerned, they would automatically now retire at the age of 65 years and not 62 years. In my view, having considered the matter, the submission cannot be accepted. 6. A reference to the policy directive of the Central Government dated 23rd March, 2007 (Annexure-2) would clearly show that it was not a general direction issued by the Central Government in relation to all teaching staff of all Universities. In so many words, the decision s qualified and restricted to centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education only. The reason for such restrictive implementation is also to be found in the said communication which is in order to overcome the shortage of Teachers in centrally funded higher and technical education institutions. It is not the case of the petitioners nor could it be their case that the Universities of Bihar are "centrally funded higher and technical education institutions". Thus, in my view, Annexure-2 is not such a binding direction by the Central Government in terms of Section 20 of the UGC Act in respect of all Universities. Then referring to the letter dated 4th April, 2007 (Annexure-1 to the first writ application) of UGC, it would be seen that the same is addressed only to the Registrars of Central/Deemed Universities and not to all Universities in general. Then referring to the letter dated 4th April, 2007 (Annexure-1 to the first writ application) of UGC, it would be seen that the same is addressed only to the Registrars of Central/Deemed Universities and not to all Universities in general. Then the letter again refers to teaching positions in centrally funded institutions in the higher and technical education which expression, to my mind and as held above, would not include the Universities of Bihar as the Universities of Bihar are not funded by the Central Government though they do receive grants from UGC. In my view, central funding of University is distinct and different from grants from UGC. Thus, even this communication of UGC, though copies of which have been marked to all the State Universities and all the State Secretaries, cannot be taken to be a decision much less a conscious decision on part of UGC to increase the age of retirement of all Teachers in all Universities. The conscious decision of the Central Government, as adopted and echoed by the UGC, is limited and restricted to centrally funded institutions in the higher and technical education which certainly does not include the Universities in the State of Bihar." 19. After so stating, the learned Single Judge opined that the decision of the UGC was not of general application to all Universities but only to centrally funded institutions and, eventually, the learned Single Judge held thus: "9. That being the factual position, there is no conscious decision of the UGC increasing the age of retirement of Teachers in the Universities of Bihar to the age of 65 years in terms to attract Section 67(a) of the Bihar Act. Thus, the relief claimed by the petitioners are misconceived in fact and not available in law." 20. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal, being L.P.A. No. 564 of 2008, was preferred. The said appeal was decided on 21.10.2008 wherein the Division Bench of this Court referred to the letter dated 23.3.2007 and the letter dated 4.4.2007. Thereafter, the Bench referred to Section 67 of the 1976 Act and speaking through the learned Chief Justice held as follows: "6. The said appeal was decided on 21.10.2008 wherein the Division Bench of this Court referred to the letter dated 23.3.2007 and the letter dated 4.4.2007. Thereafter, the Bench referred to Section 67 of the 1976 Act and speaking through the learned Chief Justice held as follows: "6. For the purpose of the present case, the relevant provision is clause (a) of Section 67 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 which provides that the date of retirement of a teaching employee of the University or of a College shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty two years. It further provides that the date of retirement of all teaching employees will be the same which would be decided by the University Grants Commission in future. 7. That the University Grants Commission has not taken any decision with regard to the Universities of Bihar which are not centrally funded is apparent from the letters dated 23rd March, 2007 and 4th April, 2007 which are unambiguous in terms that enhancement to retirement age from 62 to 65 years is only applicable to the persons in teaching positions against posts sanctioned to centrally funded higher and technical education institutions coming under the purview of the Ministry of Higher Education in order to overcome the shortage of teachers. The decision of the enhancement of retirement age from 62 to 65 years by the University Grants Commission is, thus, confined only to those teaching employees holding teaching position against sanctioned posts in centrally funded higher and technical education Institutions and not to other Universities. This is further clarified by the University Grants Commission itself in its counter affidavit. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of its counter affidavit, the University Grants Commission stated before this Court thus: "11. That it is respectfully submitted that it is apparent from reading of the aforesaid letter dated 23.3.2007 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, that the enhancement in the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years for teaching positions is applicable in respect of only centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education. 12. That in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the University Grants Commission has not framed any Regulation specifying the age of superannuation of the teachers in the State Universities and the Colleges affiliated thereto. 12. That in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the University Grants Commission has not framed any Regulation specifying the age of superannuation of the teachers in the State Universities and the Colleges affiliated thereto. In the circumstances, it is open to the State Government to specify the 60 years or 62 years or 65 years or any other age as the age of superannuation of the teachers in the State Universities and the colleges affiliated thereto. 8. There cannot be more clarity in the stand of the University Grants Commission that the enhancement in the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years for teaching positions is applicable in respect of only centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education and that the University Grants Commission has not framed any Regulation specifying the age of superannuation of the teachers in the State Universities and the Colleges affiliated thereto." [Emphasis supplied] 21. The spine of the present litigation is the letter dated 31.12.2008. In the said letter, the subject pertains to the 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. At the beginning of the letter, it has been stated as follows: "I am directed to say that the Government of India have decided, after taking into consideration the recommendations made by the University Grants Commission (UGC) based on the decisions taken at the meeting of the Commission held on 7-8 October. 2008. to revise the pay scales of teachers in the Central Universities. The revision of pay scale of teachers shall be subject to various provisions of the Scheme of revision of pay scales as contained in this letter, and Regulations to be framed by the UGC. In this behalf in accordance with the Scheme given below. The revised pay scales and other provisions or the Scheme are as under." [Underlining is ours] 22. In this behalf in accordance with the Scheme given below. The revised pay scales and other provisions or the Scheme are as under." [Underlining is ours] 22. From the aforesaid decision of this Court and the subject which finds mention in the letter dated 31.12.2008, two aspects are highlighted, namely, that this Court had taken note of the stand of the UGC that the latter circular was applicable in respect of only centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education and the UGC had not framed any Regulation specifying the age of superannuation of teachers in the State Universities and Colleges affiliated thereto and further that Regulations are required to be framed by the UGC. 23. Thereafter, paragraph 1 deals with General concept. Paragraph 2 deals with Revised Pay Scales. Service Conditions and Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent positions. Paragraph 3 deals with Pay Scales of ProVice-Chancellor/ice-Chancellor of Universities. Paragraph 4 deals with pay scales of Principals in Colleges. Paragraph 5 deals with Pay Scales and Career Advancement Scheme for Librarians, etc. Paragraphs 6 to 11 deal with other terms and conditions of services. Paragraph 8 deals with other terms and conditions. It provides for (a) Increments, (b) Pay Fixation Formula, (c) Allowances, (d) Study Leave, (e) Research Promotion Grant and many other aspects. Clause (f) of the said paragraph deals with Age of Superannuation. The same, being pivotal to the issue, is reproduced below: "(f) Age of Superannuation. (i) In order to meet the situation arising out of shortage of teachers in universities and other teaching institutions and the consequent vacant positions therein, the age of superannuation of teachers in Central Educational Institutions has already been enhanced to sixty five years, vide the Department of Higher Education letter No. F. No. 1-19/2006-U.II dated 23.3.2007. for those involved in class room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching career and to retain teachers in service for a longer period. Consequent on upward revision of the age of superannuation of teachers, the Central Government has already authorized the Central Universities, vide Department of Higher Education P.O. letter No.F-1-24/2006-Desk(U) dated 30.3.2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of Vice-Chancellors of Central Universities from 65 to years to 70 years, subject to amendments in the respective statutes, with the approval of the competent authority (Visitor in the case of Central Universities). (ii) Subject to availability of vacant positions and fitness, teachers shall also be re-employed on contract appointment beyond the age of sixty five years up to the age of seventy years. Re-employment beyond the age of superannuation shall, however, be done selectively, for a limited period of 3 years in the first instance and then for another further period of 2 years purely on the basis of merit, experience, area of specialization and peer group review and only against availablevacant positions without affecting selection or promotion prospects of eligible teachers. (iii) Whereas the enhancement of the age of superannuation for teachers engaged in classroom teaching is intended to attract eligible persons to a career in teaching and to meet the shortage of teachers by retaining teachers in service for a longer period, and whereas there is no shortage in the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education, the increase in the age of superannuation from the present sixty two years shall not be available to the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physcial Education." In this context, it is pertinent of refer to Clause (p) which deals with Applicability of the Scheme. The same, being relevant, is reproduced below: "(p) Applicability of the Scheme. (i) This Scheme shall be applicable to teachers and other equivalent cadres of Library and Physical Education in all the Central Universities and Colleges there-under and the institutions Deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. The implementation of the revised scales shall be subject to the acceptance of all the conditions mentioned in this letter as well as Regulations to be framed by the UGC in this behalf. Universities implementing this Scheme shall be advised by the UGC to amend their relevant statutes and ordinances in line with the UGC Regulations within three months from the date of issue of this letter. (ii) This Scheme does not extend to the cadres of Registrar, Finance Officer and Controller of Examinations for which a separate Scheme is being issues separately. Universities implementing this Scheme shall be advised by the UGC to amend their relevant statutes and ordinances in line with the UGC Regulations within three months from the date of issue of this letter. (ii) This Scheme does not extend to the cadres of Registrar, Finance Officer and Controller of Examinations for which a separate Scheme is being issues separately. (iii) This Scheme does not extend to the Accompanists, Coaches, Tutors and Demonstrators, Pay and Grade Pay of the said categories of employees shall be fixed in the appropriate Pay Bands relative to their existing Pay in each university/institution corresponding to such fixation in respect of Central Government employees as approved by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission. (iv) This Scheme does not extend to the posts of professionals like System Analysts, Senior Analysts, Research Officers etc. who shall be treated at par with similarly qualified personnel in research/scientific organizations of the Central Government. (v) This Scheme may be extended to universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of State Legislatures, provided State Governments wish to adopt and implement the scheme subject to the following terms and conditions: (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 expenditures from its own sources. (c) Financial assistance referred to in sub-clause (a) above shall be provided for period from 1.1.2006 to 31.3.2010. (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 1.4.2010. (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 1.1.2006. of university and college teachers shall be taken over by the State Government opting for revision of pay scales with effect from 1.4.2010. (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 1.1.2006. (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 1.1.2006; 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 hereinabove." [Italics is ours] 24. On a perusal of the said letter, it is evident that the Government of India has decided, after taking into consideration the recommendations made by the UGC to revise the scale, to revise the pay scales of teaching employees of the Central Universities and the Regulations are to be framed by the UGC in this behalf in accordance with the scheme. Clause 8(p) which deals with the applicability of the scheme stipulates that it shall be applicable to teachers and other equivalent cadres of Library and Physical Education in all the Central Universities and Colleges thereunder and the Institutions deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. What has been stated therein again is that the scheme may be extended to universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislatures provided the State Government wished to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions provided therein. Be it noted, one of the conditions relates to financial condition. 25. What has been stated therein again is that the scheme may be extended to universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislatures provided the State Government wished to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions provided therein. Be it noted, one of the conditions relates to financial condition. 25. The UGC, in its counter affidavit, in paragraph 8, has stated thus: "8. That subsequently, the University Grants Commission in exercise of its power conferred under Section 26(1)(e) & (f) read with Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, framed the University Grants Commission [Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of teachers in universities and institutions affiliated to it] Regulation, 2000. It is relevant to state that the said Regulation does not provide for the age of superannuation." Thereafter, a reference has been made to the letters dated 23.3.2007 and 4.4.2007 and paragraphs 13 and 14, being relevant, are being reproduced below: "13. That in the circumstances it is respectfully submitted that since the Patna University is a State University and not funded and maintained by the University Grants Commission, hence the age of superannuation as notified by the MHRD vide their letter dated 23.3.2007, is not applicable to the teachers in the Patna University and the colleges affiliated thereto. However, it shall be open to the State Government to adopt the decision or to take any other decision, as considered appropriate in respect of the age of superannuation of teachers in higher and purview, with the approval of their appropriate competent authority. 14. That it is further submitted that so far as the letter dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India addressed to the Secretary, UGC regarding the scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in university and colleges following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission is concerned, it is respectfully submitted that the preliminary para of the said letter itself contains the stipulation regard the revision of pay scale of teachers in the Central Universities." Thereafter, paragraph 8(f) of the aforesaid letter dated 31.12.2008 has been reproduced which deals with the age of superannuation for teachers in Central Educational Institutions. 26. 26. In paragraph 15, it has been stated thus: "15. That in view of the above, it is submitted that the enhancement of age of superannuation from 62-65 is for the teachers of the Central Universities and the colleges affiliated thereto and it is open to the State Universities and the colleges affiliated thereto and the concerned State Governments to adoptthe same." 27. In the course of hearing, we have been apprised that the UGC, as per the stand made in the counter affidavit, issued the notification. A reference has been brought on record to the letter dated 24.12.1998 wherein it has been mentioned as follows: "Kindly find enclosed a copy of the UGC Notification, 1998, on the revision of pay scales, minimum qualifications for the appointment of teachers in the universities and colleges, and other measures for the maintenance of standards. These will be notified as Regulations shortly. 1.0. These shall apply to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognized by the Commission, in consultation with the concerned University under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and every institution Deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act." Thereafter, it has also been stated therein as follows: "5. The University Grants Commission expects that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales, together with all the conditions attached to it, would be implemented by the State Governments as a composite scheme without any modifications, except the date of implementation and the scale of pay as indicated in Government of India Notification No. F-1-22/97-U.I dated 27.7.98, 22.9.98 and 6.11.98. It shall be necessary for the Universities and the management of Colleges to make the necessary changes in their statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, etc. to incorporate the provisions of this scheme." 28. In the said notification, in clause 16.1.0, it has been stated thus: "16.1.0. Teachers will retire at the age of 62. However, it is open to a University or a college to re-employ a superannuated teacher according to the existing guidelines framed by the UGC up to the age of 65 years." 29. In the said notification, in clause 16.1.0, it has been stated thus: "16.1.0. Teachers will retire at the age of 62. However, it is open to a University or a college to re-employ a superannuated teacher according to the existing guidelines framed by the UGC up to the age of 65 years." 29. In another notification dated 27th July, 1998, it has been mentioned as follows: "UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualification for Appointments of Teachers in Universities, Colleges & Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998." 30. The Division Bench in B.R Ambedkar University Senior Teachers Association and Others (supra) had referred to the earlier letter and reproduced the stand of the UGC that it has not framed any Regulation in respect of the teachers in the State Universities and Colleges affiliated thereto. It was mentioned therein that it was upon the State Government to fix the age. 31. It has been urged on behalf of the learned counsel representing the case of the teachers that Section 67 of the 1976 Act categorically lays a postulate that the date of retirement of a teaching employee will be the same which would be decided by the University Grants Commission in future. Immense emphasis has been laid on the terminology used in the commencement of the provision, namely, "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act, Rules, Statutes, Regulation or Ordinance" and the terms "decided by the University Grants Commission". Thus, we proceed to reproduce Section 67 of the 1976 Act as that is relevant for the present purpose. It reads as follows: "67. Retirement from service. (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act, Rules, Statutes, Regulation or Ordinance, the date of retirement of a teaching employee of the University or of a College shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty two years. The date of retirement of a teaching emplpyee will be the same which would be decided by the University Grant Commission in future. The date of retirement of a teaching emplpyee will be the same which would be decided by the University Grant Commission in future. The date of retirement of nonteaching employee (other than the inferior servants) shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty two years: Provided that the University shall, in no case, extend the period of service of any of the teaching or non-teaching employee after he attains the age of sixty twoyears as the case may be: Provided further also that re-appointment of teachers after retirement may be made in appropriate cases up to the age of sixty five years in the manner laid down in the statutes made in this behalf in accordance with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission." (b) The University may require any teaching or non-teaching employee, who, reckoned from the date of his first appointment, has completed the qualifying service of 23 years or a total service of 27 years, to retire from the University Service, if it considers that his conduct or efficiency is such as does not justify his continuation in the service. (c) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-section, any teaching or non-teaching employee may, after giving at least three months prior notice in writing to the concerned appointing authority, retire from such date on which such a teaching or non-teaching employee has completed 32 years of qualifying service or attains 52 years of age or from such date thereafter as may be specified in the notice: Provided that no employee of the University under orders of suspension shall retire except without a specific approval of the Syndicate. (ii) The University may, in the public interest, require any teaching or non-teaching employee, after giving at least three months prior notice in writing or after paying an amount equivalent to pay and allowance of three months in lieu of such notice, to retire from such date on which he completes 32 years of qualifying service or attains 52 years of age, or from such date thereafter as may be specified in the notice. (d) The provisions contained in the preceding sub-sections shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teaching and non-teaching employees of affiliated Colleges." 32. Be it noted, similar provision exists in Section 64 of the Patna University Act. 33. (d) The provisions contained in the preceding sub-sections shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teaching and non-teaching employees of affiliated Colleges." 32. Be it noted, similar provision exists in Section 64 of the Patna University Act. 33. The submission of the learned counsel for the University is that the UGC has not taken any decision by framing a Regulation or issuing a Notification about the age of the teachers of other universities. What has been done by the letter is that the MHRD had accepted the recommendations of the teachers subject to framing of Regulations by centrally funded educational institutions and the universities affiliated thereto subject to the amendment of the respective statutes. If the said clause is carefully read, it is perceptible that it mentioned the age of superannuation for teachers of Centrally Funded Educational Institutions which has already been enhanced to 65 years by the letter dated 23.3.2007 but they are involved in classroom teaching. The letter in question pertains to the Vice-Chancellors of "the Central Universities and also negatively stipulates that the enhancement of age shall not be available to the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education. The purpose of stating so is that the whole thing has been based on the letter dated 23.3.2007 barring certain other groups. If we go through the letter in a harmonious manner, it would only convey that it was the letter written by the MHRD to the UGC. Thus, the UGC has not taken any decision. The situation is as has been understood by the Division Bench of this Court in B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University Senior Teachers Association (supra). 34. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Legislature has intended that the date of retirement of the teaching employee will be the same which would be decided by the UGC in future and the Legislature had left it to the Government to implement the same the moment the UGC decides it. 35. It is urged by them that if Section 67 of the 1976 Act and Section 64 of the Patna University Act are properly read, it would be quite clear that the legislature has really deliberately expressed the intention that the age of superannuation would automatically stand extended once the UGC takes a decision. 35. It is urged by them that if Section 67 of the 1976 Act and Section 64 of the Patna University Act are properly read, it would be quite clear that the legislature has really deliberately expressed the intention that the age of superannuation would automatically stand extended once the UGC takes a decision. It is urged that this is not application of the legislative power in entirety but a conditional legislation which covers to determine a contingency or event upon the happening of which the legislative provisions are made to operate. They have invited our attention to paragraph 236 in Re Art. 143, Constitution of India and Delhi Laws Act (1912) etc., AIR 1951 SC 332 which is as follows: "236. Broadly speaking, the question of delegated legislation has come up for consideration before courts of law in two distinct classes of cases. One of these classes comprises what is known as cases of "conditional legislation, " where according to the generally accepted view, the element of delegation that is present relates not to any legislative function at all, but to the determination of a contingency or event, upon the happening of which the legislative provisions are made to operate. The other class comprises cases of delegation proper, where admittedly some portion of the legislative power has been conferred by the legislative body upon what is described as a subordinate agent or authority. I will take up for consideration these two types of cases one after the other." 36. They have also drawn inspiration from paragraph 29 of the decision in Hamdard Dawakhana and Another V/s. Union of India and Others, AIR 1960 SC 554 . It has been stated that the legislature has laid down the broad principles of its policy in the legislation and has left the details to be supplied by the administrative authority. It is submitted by them that the Legislature did not want to amend the provisions for fixing the age of superannuation and has left it to be a condition precedent to happen. Paragraph 29 of the aforesaid decision, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced as follows: "29. The third point raised by Mr. Munshi was that the words or any other disease or condition which may be specified in the rules made under this Act in cl. Paragraph 29 of the aforesaid decision, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced as follows: "29. The third point raised by Mr. Munshi was that the words or any other disease or condition which may be specified in the rules made under this Act in cl. (d) of S. 3 of the Act are delegated legislation and do not lay down any certain criteria or proper standards, and surrender unguided and uncanalised power to the executive to add to diseases in the schedule. The learned Solicitor-General in reply supported the schedule as a case of conditional legislation and not the exercise of delegated legislative power and he further contended that even if it was held to be the latter it was within the limits recognised by judicial decisions. The distinction between conditional legislation and delegated legislation is this that in the former the delegates power is that of determining when a legislative declared rule of conduct shall become effective; Hampton & Co. V/s. United States, (1927) 276 US 394, and the latter involves delegation of rule making power which constitutionally may be exercised by the administrative agent. This means that the legislature having laid down the broad principles of its policy in the legislation can then leave the details to be supplied by the administrative authority. In other words by delegated legislation the delegate completes the legislation by supplying details within the limits prescribed by the statute and in the case of conditional legislation the power of legislation is exercised by the legislature conditionally leaving to the discretion of an external authority the time and manner of carrying its legislation into effect as also the determination of the area to which it is to extend; The Queen V/s. Burah, (1878)3 AC 889; Charles Russell V/s. The Queen, (1882)7 AC 829 at p. 835; Emperor V/s. Benoarilal Sarma, 72 Ind. App. 57; (AIR 1945 PC 48); Inder Singh V/s. State of Rajasthan, (1957) SCR 605: [(S) AIR 1957 Supreme Court 510]. Thus when the delegate is given the power of making rules and regulations in order to fill in the details to carry out and subserve the purposes of the legislation the manner in which the requirements of the statute are to be met and the rights therein created to be enjoyed, it is an exercise of delegated legislation. Thus when the delegate is given the power of making rules and regulations in order to fill in the details to carry out and subserve the purposes of the legislation the manner in which the requirements of the statute are to be met and the rights therein created to be enjoyed, it is an exercise of delegated legislation. But when the legislation is complete in itself and the legislature has itself made the law and the only function left to the delegate is to apply the law to an area or to determine the time and manner of carrying it into effect, it is conditional legislation, To put it in the language of another American case: "To assert that a law is less than a law because it is made to depend upon a future event or act is to rob the legislature of the power to act wisely for the public welfare whenever a law is passed relating to a state of affairs not yet developed, or the things future and impossible to fully know." The proper distinction there pointed out was this: "The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes or intends to make its own action depend. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the law making power, and must therefore be subject of enquiry and determination outside the hall of legislatures". (In Lockes Appeal 72 Pa. 491; Field & Co. V/s. Clark, (1892) 143 US 649). But the discretion should not be so wide that it is impossible to discern its limits. There must instead be definite boundaries within which the powers of the administrative authority are exercisable. Delegation should not be so indefinite as to amount to an abdication of the legislative function. Schwartz- American Administrative Law, page 21." 37. A reference has also been made to the decision in Ramesh Birch & Ors. V/s. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 560 , wherein after referring to a catena of decisions, their Lordships have held thus: "13.........Suffice it to say that these decisions have been interpreted as holding that the power of Parliament to entrust legislative powers to some other body or authority is not unbridled and absolute. V/s. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 560 , wherein after referring to a catena of decisions, their Lordships have held thus: "13.........Suffice it to say that these decisions have been interpreted as holding that the power of Parliament to entrust legislative powers to some other body or authority is not unbridled and absolute. It must lay down essential legislative policy and indicate the guidelines to be kept in view by that authority in exercising the delegated powers." 38. Relying on the same, it is urged that the legislature had not abdicated its power but has left the determination to be done on the after thing to happen. 39. inspiration is drawn from Lalit Mohan Pandey V/s. Pooran Singh & Ors., (2004)6 SCC 626 wherein their Lordships have held thus: "60. A statute must be construed having regard to the legislative intent. It has to be meaningful. A construction which leads to manifest absurdity must not be preferred to a construction which would fulfill the object and purport of the legislative intent." 40. Relying on the said decision, it is urged that when the legislation wanted, a meaning has to be given to it to fulfill the object and purport of the legislative intent. To elaborate, it is canvassed by them that unless the UGC has really taken a decision, the State Government is bound by it because of the legislative intendment under the provisions contained in Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act and Section 64 of the Patna University Act. 41. At this juncture, we may state with profit that in the course of hearing, on a query being made from Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the UGC, whether the UGC has taken any categorical decision wherefrom it could be conveyed that the age of superannuation of the University teachers other than those of the centrally funded educational institutions should be 62 years, the learned counsel categorically answered in the negative. The same is in accord and consonance with the counter affidavit and the letters that have been brought on record. The same is in accord and consonance with the counter affidavit and the letters that have been brought on record. The learned Single Judge has referred to the letter dated 31.12.2008 as well as the letter dated 28.2.2009 whereby the UGC has addressed to all the Education Secretaries of all State Governments recommending that the State Government may take action to adopt the Government of Indias scheme for State Universities and Colleges, payment of pay scales, enhancement of retirement age and release of 40% of the arrears during the current financial year in accordance with those provisions. If we understand those two letters which we have referred to in our order earlier, they having insegregable nexus with each other containing a reference to the framing of Regulations, the stand of the UGC is also that the Regulation is to be framed regarding the age of retirement of University and College teachers. The learned Single Judge has adverted to the factum of shortage of teachers, the standard of education and the recommendations of the UGC, the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the provisions contained in Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act to arrive at the conclusion that the decision had been taken by the UGC. The learned Single Judge is also guided by the fact that there is the recommendation of the UGC, as usually done, and also the provision under the Universities Act that in case of any recommendation by the UGC in future, if the age of retirement is recommended by the UGC, the State Government has no other option but to implement it. On the said base, the learned Single Judge has opined that there has been conscious decision of the UGC and the statutory provision under the Universities Act would be deemed to be implemented with effect from 31.12.2008. 42. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has fallen into error by holding that the decision, has been taken by the UGC. The UGC, as we understand, has not taken any decision. has neither framed any Regulation nor issued any notification as it had done so in the year 1998. The decision has to be, understood regard being had to the tex and context of the UGC Act, 1956. The UGC, as we understand, has not taken any decision. has neither framed any Regulation nor issued any notification as it had done so in the year 1998. The decision has to be, understood regard being had to the tex and context of the UGC Act, 1956. In the year 1998, the UGC had issued a notification which was nomenclatured as "UO Notification on Revision of Pay Scale Minimum Qualification for Appointments Teachers in Universities, Colleges & Other Measures for the Maintenance of Stand ards, 1998" wherein there was a reference to superannuation and re-employment of teachers. A reference was also made therein that the same would be notified as Regulations. Thus, it is clear as crystal that the UGC has been issuing notifications which are crystalised by Regulations. In the case at hand, nothing of that sort has occurred. The UGC has also made it clear that there is no guideline, no notification or Regulation which relates to the age of superannuation of the university teachers other than those of the centrally funded educational institutions and, thus, to read something else into the same would not be appropriate. The legislative intent behind Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act and Section 64 of the Patna University Act was that whenever a decision is taken, that is to say, when a Regulation is framed or a notification is issued, the same should be given effect to without further amendment, but in the absence of a decision which would mean a decision in law having the colour, character and contour of a decision, a communication of this nature neither can be regarded as a decision nor can it be treated as a deemed fiction, as has been understood by the learned Single Judge. 43. Consequently, we allow the appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the racts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.