JUDGEMENT 1. Pleadings are complete. Counter affidavits having been filed by the State and the Universities, with the consent of the parties, these writ applications are being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. The solitary issue that arises in all these writ applications, which have been filed by the teachers of various Universities of Bihar, is with regard to enhancement of their age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years. 3. This matter, the teachers have been agitating and seeking adjudication repeatedly from this Court without success. First the matter came to this Court and was decided in the case of Prof. Dr. Ravindra Prasad & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 476 . This Court held that the age of superannuation of University Teachers could not be extended in view of the circular of University Grant Commission (hereinafter referred to UGC) as these circulars related to Central Universities or Universities funded by the Central Government and were to meet specific contingency that was noticed therein. There was no conscious decision of the UGC to enhance the age of superannuation of University Teachers across the board to 65 years. In that view of the matter it was held that Section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, which is the same as Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act, 1976 would not apply. 4. Then again after a short while the issue was brought to this Court. Professor Jagdish Prasad Sharma filed a writ application before this Court based on letter dated 31.12.2008 of the Central Government in the Ministry of Human Resources. After examining the legal position, learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ application and held that in view of letter dated 31.12.2008 of the Central Government, age of superannuation of the University Teachers would stand extended to 65 years from 62 years. State appealed against the same. After hearing the parties, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the intra court Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal no. 117 of 2010 in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Professor (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Ors. on 18.5.2010. The judgment in the case of Professor (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad Sharma extending the age of superannuation was thus reversed in Division Bench. 117 of 2010 in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Professor (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Ors. on 18.5.2010. The judgment in the case of Professor (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad Sharma extending the age of superannuation was thus reversed in Division Bench. The judgment in the case of Professor (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad Sharma and the judgment of the Division Bench reversing the same are reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 680 and 2010 (3) PLJR 318 respectively. It appears that the writ petitioners, who were respondents before intra court Appeal, have filed Special Leave to Appeal before the Apex Court being SLA (Civil) no. 18766-18782 of 2010 wherein while issuing notice, the Apex Court has directed maintenance of status quo as existing on 26.7.2010. 5. Now, the teachers have not given up and once again before this Court in these batch of writ applications. 6. For convenience, I am referring to the pleadings of CWJC No. 11775 of 2010 being the case of Dinesh Chandra Baluni in which case the pleadings are complete. This time the University teachers rely on the observation contained in Division Bench judgment of this case in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Professor (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra) and in particular para 42 thereof, which is quoted here under: "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. It 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 text and context of the UGC Act, 1956. In the year 1998, the UGC had issued a notification which was nomenclatured as "UGC" Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers in Universities College & Other measures for the maintenance of Standards, 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. 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 Judge." (emphasis supplied) 7. They then refer to the letter of the Central Government in the Ministry of Human Resources Development dated 11.5.2010 (Annexure-4) and in particular paras 4 and 7 thereof, which are quoted hereunder: "4. Thus as per the terms and conditions of the Ministrys letter dated 31.12.2008, the State Government are required to implement the scheme as a composite one, including the age of superannuation (mentioned in para 8(f) of this Ministrys letter dated 31.12.2008), together with all the conditions specified or to be specified by University Grants Commission (UGC) by regulations and other guidelines. 7. It is provided in para 8(p)(v)(f) of this Ministrys letter dated 31.12.2008, that the 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. This implies that State Governments cannot make modifications lowering the pay package prescribed by this Ministry. Also after adoption of the Central Scheme as a composite package, the State Government shall be required to furnish detailed calculations in support of its claim for central assistance, in the enclosed proforma." 8. This implies that State Governments cannot make modifications lowering the pay package prescribed by this Ministry. Also after adoption of the Central Scheme as a composite package, the State Government shall be required to furnish detailed calculations in support of its claim for central assistance, in the enclosed proforma." 8. Having referred to this they then draw the attention of this Court to submit that as required by the Division Bench, University Grant Commission has now formalized the decision taken in letter dated 31.12.2008 of the Central Government, which was the subject matter of the writ petition in the case of Professor (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra) and that has been now made a part of the UGC Regulation. The UGC Regulation dated 30.6.2010 is Annexure 5 to the writ petition and it clearly says that in exercise of power under Section 26 of UGC Act and in pursuance to the letter of the Central Government dated 31.12.2008, the Regulations are being framed. The Regulations are called "the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualification 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. Clause 1.2 of the Regulation reads as follows: "1.2. They 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 university concerned 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." 9. It is then stipulated by clause 1.3 that the Regulation shall come into force with immediate effect, which would be 30.6.2010.This Regulation also provides for consequences of failure of University to comply with their recommendation under these regulations. The Regulations are thereafter appended and they are nothing but what has earlier been circulated as the letter of the Central Government dated 31.12.2008, which has now been made applicable to all State Universities as well. The Regulations are thereafter appended and they are nothing but what has earlier been circulated as the letter of the Central Government dated 31.12.2008, which has now been made applicable to all State Universities as well. Clause 2.1.0 clearly provides as under: "2.1.0-The revised scales of pay and other service conditions including age of superannuation in central universities and other institutions maintained and/or funded by the University Grants Commission(UGC), shall be strictly in accordance with the decision of the Central Government, Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education) as contained in Appendix-I." 10. Here also I may refer to clause 2.3.1 of the Regulation, which is quoted hereunder: "2.3.1-The revised scales of pay and age of superannuation as provided in clause 2.1.0 above, may also be extended to Universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature and maintained by the State Governments, subject to the implementation of the scheme as a composite one in adherence of the terms and conditions laid down in the MHRD notifications provided as Appendix I and in the MHRD letter No. F.1-7/2010-U II dated 11 May, 2010 with all conditions specified by the UGC in these Regulations and other Guidelines." 11. Now we may come what is Appendix-1 as referred to in clause 2.1.0. Appendix 1 is nothing but the letter of the Central Government dated 31.12.2008, which contained various terms and conditions including enhancement of age of superannuation. It is this letter that was used by the petitioners in the earlier writ application, which was finally decided by the Division Bench as against the teachers holding that this letter was not a part of formalized Regulation of UGC. The Court naturally negatived the stand but on the ground that the letter itself referred to Central University at the first instance and for increasing the age of University Teachers of State legislature, there was no formal Regulation. 12. It is now submitted that now this communication dated 31.12.2008 is a part of the formal Regulation as framed by UGC which in turn has been made applicable to all Universities of India including State University and which by virtue of the letter of the Central Government has become applicable and has to be accepted by the State Government as a whole, as referred to above. 13. 13. Clause 8 of Appendix-1 to the Regulation deals with other terms and conditions. Clause 8(f) deals with age of superannuation. Clause 8(f)(i) is quoted here under: "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 for teachers in Central Educational institutions has already been enhanced to sixty five years, vide the Department of Higher Education letter No. F. No. 119/2006- U.11 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 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, subject to amendments in the respective statutes, with the approval of the competent authority (Visitor in the case of Central Universities)." 14. Then in this Appendix there are some conditions as to the applicability of the Scheme, as contained in clause 8(p) with regard to financial assistance and is contained in clause 8(p)(v). The petitioners would now submit that the deficiency as noticed by the Division Bench earlier while negativing the plea of the teachers for extension of age of superannuation that there was no formalized regulation of the UGC stands cured with the regulation being framed and direct order being issued making the same applicable to every University incorporated under Central Act, Provincial Act or the State Act and to every deemed University. Once these formal regulations have been issued, then in terms of Section 67(a) Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, which is the same as Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act, 1976 , the age of superannuation of University teachers would automatically get extended by operation of law as contained therein and would become 65 years. It would also be their submission that the Central Government and UGC made it clear that the entire package/scheme has to be accepted as a whole and if that is done, then and only then the central financial assistance would flow to the State. 15. It would also be their submission that the Central Government and UGC made it clear that the entire package/scheme has to be accepted as a whole and if that is done, then and only then the central financial assistance would flow to the State. 15. Petitioners would then rely upon the Resolution of the State Government dated 29.7.2010 in the Department of Human Resources issued in the name and under authority of the Governor, which was taken pursuant to a decision of the State Cabinet wherein pursuant to the Regulation, as framed and the decision of the Central Government dated 31.12.2008, State accepted to implement the package offered clearly noticing that as a consequence of the terms and conditions contained therein, the financial assistance would be available from the Central Government. The Resolution states in para 3 thereof the financial assistance available, which is the same as stipulated in clause 8(p)(v) of the letter of the Central Government dated 31.12.2008, which is Appendix 1 of the UGC Regulation, 2010. This Resolution of the State Government has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit by the petitioners and is also part of States counter affidavit. Also, brought on record is the settlement entered into between the State Government and the representatives of the different federations of the teachers working in different Universities of the State of Bihar dated 14.7.2010, which clearly stated that UGC pay scale had already received the acceptance from the State Cabinet with effect from 1.1.2006. It also noticed that so far as age of superannuation of University teachers is concerned, is to be extended to 65 years for which the State is bound. 16. On behalf of the Universities, counter affidavits have been filed. The stand of the Universities is that they would be bound to implement whatever decision State Government takes and is statutorily binding on them. 17. The State Government in its turn has filed a counter affidavit. In para 8 thereof they have categorically accepted that there is an agreement between the State Government and the Teachers Federation with regard to increase of age of superannuation to 65 years. 17. The State Government in its turn has filed a counter affidavit. In para 8 thereof they have categorically accepted that there is an agreement between the State Government and the Teachers Federation with regard to increase of age of superannuation to 65 years. Para 8 of their counter affidavit is quoted here under: "That, the deponent further humbly submit that it is important to mention here that in the meantime on 14.7.2010 the federation of University teachers entered into an agreement with the State Government in which several decisions were taken including the enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years." 18. They do not in their counter affidavit deny the UGC Regulation of the year 2010 nor do they deny the applicability of the letter dated 31.12.2008 of the Central Government, which is Appendix-1 to the Regulation. They accept the Resolution dated 29.7.2010 of the State Government. But apparently their stand is that there has been no conscious decision on the part of the State Government to enhance the age of superannuation of University Teachers to 65 years from 62 years. It is the correctness of this stand that is now in question. 19. This curious stand of the State Government in their counter affidavit regarding no conscious decision having been taken is based on a misplaced notion, as apparent from para 10 of the counter affidavit, which is quoted hereunder: "10. That, the deponent humbly submit that, it will not out of place to mention here that in view of order dated 26.7.2010 passed in S.L.P. No.(s) 18766-18782/2010 Legislature/Cabinet cannot implement the aforesaid agreement and as such no notification can be issued in this regard." 20. The Apex Court having passed status quo order as on 26.7.2010 in an appeal from the Division Bench judgment of the case of Professor (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad Sharma they were precluded to take any decision in this regard. 21. Their further stand is that the matter is before the Legislature and decision would be taken in accordance with law after final orders of the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid S.L.P. No.(s) 18766-18782/2010, as apparent from para 11 of the counter affidavit. 22. At this stage itself I may point out that whoever suggested this stand was deliberately trying to create problem where there was none. 22. At this stage itself I may point out that whoever suggested this stand was deliberately trying to create problem where there was none. The appeal before the Apex Court was on basis of facts as stood before this Court when the learned Single Judge delivered the judgment in the case of Professor (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra) to every body knowledge the whole factual situation changed materially by the letter of the Central Government dated 11th May, 2010 followed by the UGC Regulation, 2010. 23. It may be noted that in spite of notice to UGC and it being represented by its counsel they have not chosen to file any counter affidavit. 24. Having heard the parties and having given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances noted above, in my view, the writ applications now at last must succeed. 25. As noticed above, the fact situation has undergone materials change since the decision of the Division Bench in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Professor (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra). As noticed above, in that case itself it was held that there was no formalized Regulation of UGC. That deficiency has since been cured and as referred to above, the formal UGC Regulation, 2010 has been issued on 30th of June,2010. The Division Bench had held that the letter of the Central Government dated 31.12.2008 was not made applicable to the State Universities by a formalized Regulation of UGC. That stands fully cured by UGC making that letter of the Central Government dated 31.12.2008 as an integral part of the Regulation being Appendix 1 to the Regulation and as per the terms of the Central Government letter dated 11.5.2010, the Central Government letter dated 31.12.2008 has been specifically made applicable to the State Government with a specific direction to implement the scheme as a composite one including the age of superannuation as mentioned in para 8(f) of the Central Government letter dated 31.12.2008. Thus, seen there is now a formalized decision in the shape of UGC Regulation with regard to enhancement of age of superannuation of University Teachers to 65 years. 26. In my view, one must consider the provisions of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956, and in particular the definition of "University" as given in Section 2(f) therein. University would include all Universities established under Central Act, Provincial Act or the State Act. 27. 26. In my view, one must consider the provisions of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956, and in particular the definition of "University" as given in Section 2(f) therein. University would include all Universities established under Central Act, Provincial Act or the State Act. 27. Then reference may be made to Section 12 of the University Grants Commission Act, which defined the function of the Commission, which makes it clear that general duty of the Commission is to take all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion, co-ordination of University Education and for determination and maintenance, of standard of teaching etc. Then we may refer to Section 20 of the UGC Act, which obliges the Commission to abide by the direction on question of policy given to it by the Central Government. These clearly establish that the Central Government has plenary power to lay down policy for the Commission and the Commission has the function to implement the policy apart from formulating steps in relation thereto. 28. As seen from the facts, noted above, the Central Government issued direction vide its letter dated 11.5.2010 that its policy contained in letter 31.12.2008 would now apply to all Universities in the country and this was formalized by the Regulation of UGC dated 30th of June, 2010. Material part of letter dated 11.5.2010 has been quoted above and in particular para 4 thereof. 29. Now, we come to the material portion of Section 67(a) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 , which, as stated above, is the same as Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act, 1976 , which is quoted hereunder: "...... the age of retirement of teaching employees will be the same which would be decided by the University Grants Commission in future." 30. In my view, now, by operation of Section 67(a) of the Bihar Universities Act and for that matter Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act, once such a formalized decision of UGC has taken place, the age of University teachers or the teaching employees of the University would automatically by operation of law get extended to 65 years and no formalized decision of the State Government was required in this regard as has also been noted by the Division Bench in para 42 of its judgment quote above. 31. 31. Apparently, it is because of this that in the Cabinet Resolution of the State Government, there is no specific mentioned of this enhancement of the age of superannuation of teaching employees of the University. Further it may be noted that in the Resolution of the State Government, as referred to above, consequent upon the UGC Regulation, 2010, there is neither an indication nor a whisper by the State not accepting the scheme as propounded by the UGC in totality and more so, not accepting it in relation to extending the age of superannuation. I may add here that a decision of the State Government even if it were to be of not extending the age from 62 years to 65 years that would be a self destructive decision of the State Government inasmuch as then they would not be adopting and implementing the UGC package as a whole and that would entail serious consequences for the State inasmuch as apart from other consequence, they would not be entitled to any financial assistance from the Central Government because the Central Governments direction is clear and unambiguous that accept the package as a whole including the condition for financial assistance and age of superannuation. It is one basket and not severval. The State Cabinet Resolution, as noted above, accepts the direction of the Central Government, as contained in their letter dated 31.12.2008, which is, as noted above, now a part of the statutory regulation of UGC, 2010. 32. Before parting, I may notice one other disturbing factor. Petitioners have brought on record as Annexure-7 to their supplementary affidavit the Cabinet Memorandum prepared by the Human Resources Department of the State Government dated 6th July, 2010, the correctness of which has not been disputed. In the said Memorandum in clause 3(x) it has been suggested to the State Cabinet that the Central Government wants revision of pay scale etc. of the University teachers along with all other conditions but so far as age of superannuation to 65 years is concerned, the same has been left to the discretion of the State Government as per UGC letter. This, to say the least, is not only misleading but far from the truth. of the University teachers along with all other conditions but so far as age of superannuation to 65 years is concerned, the same has been left to the discretion of the State Government as per UGC letter. This, to say the least, is not only misleading but far from the truth. Though the Cabinet Memorandum has been prepared on 6th of July, 2010 and specifically mentioned for implementation of recommendation of the University Grants Commission in regards to revision of pay scale and connected matters and it specifically refers to the letter of the Central Government dated 31.12.2008, it omits any reference to the letter of the Central Government dated 11.5.2010 addressed to all educational Secretaries of all State Governments, which specifically directed the State Government to implement the entire scheme as a composite one including the age of superannuation, which is contained in para 4 of the aforesaid letter and is also quoted above. This Cabinet Memorandum also does not refer or whisper to the UGC Regulation, 2010 issued on 30.6.2010 though the Memorandum refers to the provision of financial reimbursement contained therein, which only shows that there was a deliberate attempt to create a misunderstanding in this regard where, in fact, things have been made crystal clear by the Central Government and the UGC. This is a matter of grave concern. It is for the State Government to look into it. 33. Thus, inevitable result is that with effect from 30.6.2010, the age of superannuation of teaching employees of Universities in the State of Bihar stands extended to 65 years. As a consequence whereof any University teaching employee or teacher, who was in service then would be entitled to the benefit of extended age of superannuation and any one, who was forced to retire on or after that date prior to attaining the age of 65 years has to be taken back in service with full continuity and all consequences. 34. The writ applications, with the aforesaid observations and directions, are allowed.