Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1383 (GAU)

Pranhari Talukdar v. State of Assam

2015-11-04

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Fifteen petitioners have joined together and have instituted the present common proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioners are retired Professors of Gauhati University and are presently re-employed in the said University on contract basis under the Gauhati University Teachers Re-employment Rules, 1995. 3. By filing this petition, petitioners seek quashing of resolution of the Executive Council of Gauhati University dated 07-11-2012 giving effect to enhancement of the retirement age of all Professors of Gauhati University to 65 years from 19-09-2012 i.e. the date of the cabinet decision of Government of Assam. Petitioners further seek a direction to the respondents to implement the enhanced retirement age of 65 years either w.e.f. 01-01-2006 or w.e.f. 30-04-2009. 4. As stated above, petitioners had retired from the service of Gauhati University as Professors in various disciplines on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Thereafter they have been re-employed by the Gauhati University on contract basis under the provisions of Gauhati University Teachers Re-employment Rules, 1995 for a period of 5 years. 5. It appears that a Pay Review Committee was appointed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) on 06-09-2007 to examine the service conditions and pay scales of University and College teachers. The Committee submitted its report on 02-10-2008 making various suggestions and recommendations. The recommendations relevant for the present proceeding relates to the age of superannuation. The Pay Review Committee recommended that the age of superannuation of teachers should be 65 years throughout the country whether working in a State or Central University as also whether in a College or in an University. In its recommendatory note, the Committee expressed the view that the fears expressed by certain quarters that raising the age of superannuation to 65 years would have an adverse impact on the recruitment of young teachers at the entry level was both misconstrued and misplaced. Demand and supply situation of teachers for higher education is such that even after this provision of 65 years as the age of superannuation of teachers is put in place, there would still be a significant shortfall in the availability of qualified teachers. Moreover, the academic institutions will continue to derive the benefit of availability of senior academics both in teaching and research which would be a big factor towards improvement in quality of teaching and research. Moreover, the academic institutions will continue to derive the benefit of availability of senior academics both in teaching and research which would be a big factor towards improvement in quality of teaching and research. Therefore, the Pay Review Committee was of the considered opinion that by way of such enhancement of superannuation age it would allow the institutions to continue to derive the benefits of participation by senior academics in both teaching and research, while also attracting talented young academics to the profession. In fact, towards this end, the Pay Review Committee made another recommendation for re-employment of teachers after raising the age of superannuation to 65 years. It recommended such re-employment selectively after superannuation on contract basis upto the age of 70 years. 6. According to the petitioners, various Universities have implemented the recommendations of the Pay Review Committee. Particular reference has been made to Rajasthan University and Karnataka University where the age of superannuation has been raised to 65 years w.e.f. 01-01-2006. 7. It is stated that the revised pay package including enhancement of retirement age to 65 years as per recommendations of the Pay Review Committee of UGC is effective from 01-01-2006. According to the petitioners, Executive Council of Gauhati University in its meeting held on 30-04-2009 had accepted the aforesaid revised pay package through its resolution No. R/EC-4/2009/71 and had sent the resolution to the Government of Assam in the Higher Education Department for approval and concurrence. It is further stated that after receiving necessary approval and concurrence of the State Government, the Executive Council vide resolution No. R/EC-4/2010/87 dated 30-04-2010 decided to implement the revised pay package with immediate effect. Accordingly, the teachers working on re-employment were provided the revised pay scale w.e.f. May, 2010 and also received arrear salary following such pay revision for the period from October, 2008 to April, 2010. Thus, the re-employed teachers including the petitioners received the revised pay scales w.e.f. October, 2008. 8. In the meanwhile, UGC wrote to the Education Secretaries of all the State Governments stating that as per orders of the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, the State Governments may take action to adopt the scheme of the Central Government in respect of State Universities and Colleges including higher pay scale and enhancement of retirement age. 9. 9. Finance (Pay Research Unit) Department, Government of Assam issued notification dated 11-05-2010 providing revised UGC pay scale to the teachers in Universities/Colleges in the manner provided therein effective from 01-01-2006. It was stated that Education Department, Government of Assam would move the Government of India for releasing 80% share of the arrear pay for the period from 01-01-2006 to 31-03-2010 in terms of the scheme. Regarding enhancement of superannuation age of Vice-Chancellors and teachers of State Universities, it was stated that the Higher Education Department would examine the issue with all its ramifications and move an appropriate proposal. 10. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department informed the Vice-Chancellor of Gauhati University and other State Universities vide letter dated 26-09-2012 that in the cabinet meeting held on 19-09-2012 it was decided to raise the age of retirement of all Professors of educational institutions including Medical Colleges to 65 years. 11. Thereafter, Executive Council of Gauhati University in its meeting held on 07-11-2012 resolved that the age of retirement of all Professors in Gauhati University be enhanced to 65 years w.e.f. the date of cabinet decision i.e. 19-09-2012. This decision of the Executive Council was subsequently ratified by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 15-11-2012. 12. Petitioners had submitted a representation dated 04-11-2012 before the Vice-Chancellor and the Chairman of the Executive Council requesting to give effect to the enhanced retirement age as per decision of the Executive Council dated 30-04-2009. 13. With the grievance that no decision has been taken by the University authorities on the above representation of the petitioners, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 14. Respondents have filed separate affidavits. Respondent No. 1, i.e., Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Higher) Department in his affidavit has stated that petitioners had retired from service as Professors of Gauhati University and they have been re-employed by the University under the re-employment rules. Assam Cabinet took a decision on 19.09.2012 raising superannuation age of Professors of all educational institutions in the State to 65 years as per recommendation of UGC dated 02.10.2008. The Cabinet decision has not been given any retrospective effect. Thus, it has to be construed prospectively. No decision as to release of arrear revised salary w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was taken by the State Government. The Cabinet decision has not been given any retrospective effect. Thus, it has to be construed prospectively. No decision as to release of arrear revised salary w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was taken by the State Government. Accordingly, age of superannuation has been made 65 years w.e.f. 19.09.2012 i.e., from the date of decision of the Cabinet. Therefore, any entitlement of the petitioners as per enhanced age of superannuation has to be construed prospectively. Respondent No. 1 has denied any knowledge about giving effect to revised pay scale from 01.01.2006. 15. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 i.e., Gauhati University and its authorities have filed a common affidavit. It is stated that recommendations of the UGC in so far conditions of service of teachers are concerned are not strictly binding on the University. University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications 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 has been adopted by the Gauhati University subject to certain conditions, including age of superannuation which was left to be decided by the Govt. of Assam. Retirement age of the teachers of Gauhati University was 60 years. However, the University has got re-employment scheme which was adopted in the year 1995. Cabinet of Govt. of Assam in its meeting held on 19.09.2012 decided to raise the age of superannuation of Professors in all educational institutions of the State up-to 65 years. Accordingly, such enhancement of superannuation age has been given effect to from 19.09.2012 i.e., from the date of decision of the Cabinet. Thus, the superannuation age of 65 years has been made effective from 19.09.2012. Finance Department, Govt. of Assam in its notification dated 11.05.2010 did not mention payment of revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It was only stated that revised pay structure shall be notionally fixed as on 01.01.2006, but made effective from 01.04.2009. The Cabinet decision enhancing superannuation age of Professors to 65 years was taken up by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 07.11.2012. Executive Council resolved to raise the retirement age to 65 years with effect from the date of the Cabinet decision i.e., 19.09.2012. In its subsequent meeting held on 15.11.2012, Executive Council confirmed the above resolution dated 07.11.2012. Executive Council resolved to raise the retirement age to 65 years with effect from the date of the Cabinet decision i.e., 19.09.2012. In its subsequent meeting held on 15.11.2012, Executive Council confirmed the above resolution dated 07.11.2012. Regarding the representation submitted by the petitioners, it is stated that the Executive Committee had resolved on 15.11.2012 to refer the matter to the Govt. of Assam and to the Chancellor of the University for consideration. Further stand taken in the affidavit is that since the petitioners had opted for re-employment and are in service on re-employment, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners by giving effect to the enhanced superannuation age from 19.09.2012 as petitioners in any case would continue their re-employment upto 65 years. It is, therefore, contended that the writ petition lacks merit and should be dismissed. 16. Respondent Nos. 5 to 25 have filed a common affidavit. Referring to the UGC recommendations for revised pay scale and enhancement of superannuation age upto 65 years as against 60 years, it is stated that Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India in its letter dated 14.08.2012 stated that since the question of enhancement of superannuation age is exclusively within the policy making power of the State Govt., the issue of age of superannuation was left to the discretion of the State Govts. to be decided at their level. The condition of enhancement of superannuation age as part of the revised pay package was withdrawn for the purpose of reimbursement of central share of arrears to the extent of 80% to be paid to the State University and College teachers. Therefore, the Central Govt. had decided to delink the condition of enhancement of superannuation age from the payment of central share of 80% arrears to the States. Most State Governments, including Assam had kept the issue of enhancement of superannuation age in abeyance while implementing the new pay scales from 01.01.2006. Executive Council of Gauhati University in its meeting held on 30.04.2009 accepted the revised pay package and had sent the resolution for approval of the State Government. State Govt. had approved the resolution with certain modifications which was placed before the Executive Council on 23.09.2010 where it was resolved that the age of superannuation would be decided by the State Govt. State Govt. had approved the resolution with certain modifications which was placed before the Executive Council on 23.09.2010 where it was resolved that the age of superannuation would be decided by the State Govt. It is, however, admitted that 40% of the arrears were released as contended by the petitioners, but it has no relevance or nexus to the enhancement of superannuation age. All the State Universities have enhanced the age of superannuation to 65 years either with effect from the date of Cabinet decision i.e., 19.09.2012 or from subsequent dates of adoption of such decision by the respective Universities. Therefore, the Cabinet decision has to be regarded as prospective and cannot be treated as retrospective by any interpretation. Gauhati University is financed by the State Govt. and, therefore, it is beyond the competence of the University to enhance the age of superannuation independently as it has financial implications. Contending that the writ petition lacks merit, respondent Nos. 5 to 25 seek dismissal of the writ petition. 17. Petitioners have filed rejoinder-affidavit contesting the stand taken by the respondents and reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition. It is also reiterated that the Finance Department in its notification dated 11.05.2010 had made implementation of the revised pay scales effective from 01.01.2006. Delay in taking a decision by the Cabinet to enhance the superannuation age cannot be a good reason for deferring implementation of the revised pay scales to a later date. Cabinet decision has to be construed as approving the recommendation of UGC to raise superannuation age to 65 years and thus the decision so taken will have to be relatable to the date of effect of the UGC recommendation. 18. Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Senior Council assisted by Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University. Also heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department, Govt. of Assam and Mr. B. Zaman, learned counsel for the private respondents. 19. Referring to the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications 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, Mr. Also heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department, Govt. of Assam and Mr. B. Zaman, learned counsel for the private respondents. 19. Referring to the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications 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, Mr. Goswami submits that revised scales of pay and other service conditions, including age of superannuation in Central Universities and other institutions maintained and/or funded by the UGC shall be strictly in accordance with the decision of the Central Govt. He further submits that the revised pay scales and age of superannuation as provided 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 implementation of the scheme as a composite whole. The Central Govt. in its letter dated 31.12.2008 had informed the UGC that in the event of extension of the scheme to State Universities etc., financial assistance from the Central Govt. to the State Govt. shall be limited to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved following pay revision and the State Govt. shall meet the remaining 20% from its own sources. Financial assistance in the above ratio shall be provided for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010, but the entire liability following revision of pay shall be taken over by the States w.e.f. 01.04.2010. The effective date for implementation of the above scheme is 01.01.2006. Learned Senior Counsel therefore, submits that the two components of the scheme, namely, revision of pay scales and enhancement of superannuation age cannot be delinked. In any case, the Executive Council of Gauhati University in its meeting held on 30.04.2009 had accepted the revised pay package consequent upon which the re-employed teachers were paid the revised pay scale w.e.f. October, 2008. The Cabinet decision taken on 19.09.2012 to raise the superannuation age of Professors to 65 years is only a recognition of the acceptance of the scheme by the Assam Govt. Therefore, such decision will relate back to the decision of the Executive Council taken on 30.04.2009 whereby revised pay scales were extended to the Professors of Gauhati University including those on re-employment like the petitioners. Question of retrospectivity of such decision does not arise. Therefore, such decision will relate back to the decision of the Executive Council taken on 30.04.2009 whereby revised pay scales were extended to the Professors of Gauhati University including those on re-employment like the petitioners. Question of retrospectivity of such decision does not arise. In this connection, learned Senior Council has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1953 SC 394 . He further submits that effecting the enhanced age of superannuation from the date of decision of the Executive Council i.e., 30.04.2009 would be the most appropriate considering the facts and circumstances of the case and it will not result in any additional financial burden on the State. 20. Submissions advanced by learned Senior Council for the petitioners have been strongly resisted by learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. Sarma learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University submits that there is no error or mistake in the decision of the University in giving effect to the enhanced age of superannuation of its Professors from the date of the Cabinet decision. This is a policy decision of the State Govt. covering all institutions of higher education of the State. No separate decision can be taken in respect of Gauhati University alone. It is clear that even the Central Govt. had delinked the component of enhanced superannuation age from the revised pay package because of the fact that such decision to raise the superannuation age is exclusively within the domain of the State Governments. Though Gauhati University had given the benefit of revised pay scale to the petitioners and other re-employed teachers from October, 2008, nonetheless, in view of the specific resolution of the Executive Council dated 07.11.2012 to give effect to the enhanced superannuation age upto 65 years from the date of Cabinet decision i.e., 19.09.2012, there is no ambiguity in the matter. Those who would attain 60 years of age i.e., the earlier age of superannuation as on 19.09.2012 or thereafter, would get the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years. He further submits that no legal or fundamental rights of the petitioners have been violated by giving effect to the enhanced superannuation age from 19.09.2012. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioners inasmuch as they would continue on re-employment upto 65 years. He further submits that no legal or fundamental rights of the petitioners have been violated by giving effect to the enhanced superannuation age from 19.09.2012. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioners inasmuch as they would continue on re-employment upto 65 years. He, therefore, submits that there is no merit in the writ petition which should be dismissed. 21. While generally adopting the submissions of Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University, Mr. M. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department submits that in so far age of superannuation of teachers of State Universities are concerned, it is entirely within the domain of the State Govt. or the State Legislatures to determine. Recommendation of the UGC is not binding on the State Govt. The scheme itself gives discretion to the State Govt. regarding acceptance of it. When the State has accepted the scheme with the rider that the enhanced age of superannuation would be effective from the date of Cabinet decision, no fault can be found with such decision of the State. Final decision regarding enhancement of superannuation age of teachers within a particular State would be that of the State itself. In that view of the matter, impugned resolution of the Executive Council of Gauhati University giving effect to enhanced superannuation age from 19.09.2012 does not suffer from any irregularity, not to speak of any illegality. In support of his submissions, Mr. Choudhury has placed reliance on the following decisions: - (i) TP George & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 191, (ii) B. Bharat Kumar & Ors. Vs. Osmania University & Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 58 , (iii) Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 633 . 22. Learned counsel for the private respondents has adopted the submissions made by Mr. Sarma and Mr. Choudhury. 23. Submissions made at the Bar have received the due consideration of the Court. 24. From the submissions and averments made and from the documents placed on record, the following relevant facts may be culled out, to have a proper perspective which may enable effective adjudication of the case: - 1. Pay Review Committee of UGC submitted its report on 02.10.2008. Submissions made at the Bar have received the due consideration of the Court. 24. From the submissions and averments made and from the documents placed on record, the following relevant facts may be culled out, to have a proper perspective which may enable effective adjudication of the case: - 1. Pay Review Committee of UGC submitted its report on 02.10.2008. Pay Review Committee while recommending enhancement of pay scale also recommended that the age of superannuation of college or university teachers should be 65 years throughout the country whether working in a State or Central University as also whether in a College or in an University. 2. Pay Review Committee reiterated that its recommendations be implemented by all Universities and Colleges in all the States fully as a package and not partially. It also reiterated that the recommendations should be implemented with effect from a single date, namely, 01.01.2006, though various allowance may be made admissible w.e.f. 01.09.2008. 3. Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) informed the Secretary, UGC vide letter dated 31.12.2008 that the Govt. of India had decided to revise the pay scales of the teachers as per recommendations made by the UGC. It was stated that the age of superannuation for teachers in central educational institutions had already been enhanced to 65 years. However, it was stated that implementation of the revised pay scales would be subject to acceptance of the conditions mentioned in the said letter dated 31.12.2008 as well as regulations to be framed by the UGC in this behalf. 4. If the State Governments wish to adopt and implement the scheme subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned therein, there would be financial assistance by the Central Govt. to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved due to pay review for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010, during which period, the State Governments would have to meet the remaining 20% of the additional expenditure from its own sources; the entire liability on account of pay revision would thereafter have to be taken over by the State Govt. w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Financial assistance from the Central Govt. would be extended for revision of pay scales in respect of only those posts which were in existence and had been filled up as on 01.01.2006. 5. w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Financial assistance from the Central Govt. would be extended for revision of pay scales in respect of only those posts which were in existence and had been filled up as on 01.01.2006. 5. Secretary, UGC thereafter wrote to the Education Secretaries of all the State Governments vide letter dated 28.02.2009 stating that the State Governments may take steps to adopt the above Govt. of India scheme of pay revision for State Universities and Colleges with payment of revised pay scales, enhancement of superannuation age and release of 40% of the arrears. The State Governments were requested to initiate immediate action so that implementation of the scheme could be carried out in a time bound manner. 6. Executive Council of Gauhati University in its meeting held on 30.04.2009 had accepted the above revised pay package vide resolution No. R/EC-4/2009/71, where after, the resolution was sent to the Govt. of Assam in the Education (Higher) Department for approval and concurrence. On receipt of approval and concurrence of the State Govt., the Executive Council in its meeting held on 30.04.2010 vide resolution No. R/EC-4/2010/87 decided to implement the revised pay package. Consequently, in addition to the eligible Professors of Gauhati University and other teaching staff, the re-employed teachers, including the petitioners received the revised pay scale from May, 2010 and also the arrears on account of pay revision for the period from October, 2008 to April, 2010. Thus, the re-employed teachers i.e., teachers re-employed after superannuation at the age of 60 years, received the revised pay scale w.e.f. October, 2008. 7. Finance (Pay Research Unit) Department, Govt. of Assam vide its notification dated 11.05.2010, issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India extended the benefit of the revised UGC pay scales to the teachers in Universities/Colleges of the State as per details mentioned in the said notification. It was stated that the pay in the respective pay band/pay scale would be determined notionally by multiplying the existing basic pay as on 01.01.2006. It was further stated that the benefit of revised pay structure as per the said notification would be effective from 01.04.2009, but the revised pay would be notionally fixed as on 01.01.2006. It was also stated that Education Department, Govt. of Assam would move the Govt. It was further stated that the benefit of revised pay structure as per the said notification would be effective from 01.04.2009, but the revised pay would be notionally fixed as on 01.01.2006. It was also stated that Education Department, Govt. of Assam would move the Govt. of India for release of 80% share of the arrear amount for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010 on account of pay revision. Regarding superannuation age, it was stated that Higher Education Department would examine the issue relating to superannuation age of Vice Chancellors and teachers of State Universities with all its ramifications and move an appropriate proposal. 8. Govt. of India in the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) wrote to all State Education Secretaries in-charge of Higher Education vide letter dated 14.08.2012 stating that taking into consideration the views expressed by several State Education Ministers during the conference held on 2010, the Central Govt. decided to delink the condition of enhancement of superannuation age from payment of the central share of 80% to the States. It was further stated that bearing in mind that the question of enhancement of retirement age of college/university teachers under the States is exclusively within the domain of policy making power of the State Govts., the issue of retirement age was left to the discretion of the State Governments. 9. Cabinet of Assam Government in its meeting held on 19.09.2012 decided to raise the age of superannuation of all Professors of educational institutions of the State, including Medical Colleges to 65 years. 10. Executive Council of Gauhati University in its meeting held on 07.11.2012, vide resolution No. R/EC-08/2012/119 resolved that the age of superannuation of all Professors of Gauhati University be enhanced to 65 years with effect from the date of the Cabinet decision i.e., 19.09.2012. This resolution was subsequently ratified by the Executive Council in its next meeting held on 15.11.2012. 11. While Gauhati University adopted the enhanced superannuation age w.e.f. 19.09.2012 i.e., the date of the Cabinet decision, Dibrugarh University implemented the same w.e.f. 15.10.2012, on which date the Executive Council of Dibrugarh University decided to implement the enhanced retirement age. On the other hand, Krishna Kanta Handique State Open University implemented the decision with effect from the date of Cabinet decision i.e., 19.09.2012, like the Gauhati University. On the other hand, Krishna Kanta Handique State Open University implemented the decision with effect from the date of Cabinet decision i.e., 19.09.2012, like the Gauhati University. Thus, the date of implementation of enhanced superannuation age was not uniform throughout the State. 25. Having noticed the relevant facts as above, claim of the petitioners may now be examined. 26. As noticed above, on completion of 60 years of age, petitioners had retired from service as Professors of Gauhati University. Thereafter they have been re-employed by the University under the re-employment rules on contract basis for a period of 5 years i.e., upto the age of 65 years. It is an admitted position that the Executive Council of Gauhati University in its meeting held on 30.04.2009 accepted the revised pay package of UGC. Upon approval and concurrence by the State Govt., the Executive Council in its meeting held on 30.04.2010 decided to implement the revised pay package. Accordingly, the eligible teachers including the re-employed teachers like the petitioners were paid the revised pay scale w.e.f. October, 2008 i.e., regular revised UGC pay scale from May, 2010 and arrear salary on account of pay revision for the period from October, 2008 to April, 2010. This factum is not disputed by the respondents. Legal consequence which flows from providing revised pay scale to the petitioners and other re-employed teachers w.e.f. October, 2008 would be that they were treated by the Gauhati University to be in regular employment in the University service. Because they were considered to be in regular employment, the benefit of revised pay scale was extended to them. At the time of and during the period when the revised pay scale was extended to the petitioners, they had already crossed 60 years of age. Extending the benefit of revised pay scale therefore, is a clear pointer to the fact that petitioners were treated to be in regular employment in the University though they had completed 60 years of age. 27. Learned counsel for the respondents have put much emphasis on the decision of the Central Govt. to de-link the condition of enhancement of the superannuation age from implementing the UGC scheme. Such contention is clearly misplaced and misconceived inasmuch as the de-linking was for the purpose of receiving the central share to the extent of 80% of the additional revenue requirement following pay revision as per UGC recommendation. to de-link the condition of enhancement of the superannuation age from implementing the UGC scheme. Such contention is clearly misplaced and misconceived inasmuch as the de-linking was for the purpose of receiving the central share to the extent of 80% of the additional revenue requirement following pay revision as per UGC recommendation. Nothing more should be read into it. 28. The decisions cited at the Bar by Mr. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department are also not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 29. In TP George (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that it is not for the Court to prescribe the correct age of retirement, but that is a policy function requiring considerable expertise to be carried out by the State Govt. or by the State Legislature or by the University concerned. That is not an issue in this proceeding. State Govt. had already taken the decision to raise the superannuation age to 65 years. Issue in this case is the effective date of implementation of the said decision, which was not an issue in TP George (supra). 30. The decision in TP George (supra) was followed in B. Bharat Kumar (supra). In that case, the Supreme Court held that where the scheme of the Central Govt. itself gave discretion to the State Govt. and where the State Govt. exercises that discretion and accepts a part of the scheme and not the whole scheme, it would be within the powers of the State Govt. not to accept the scheme in so far increase in the superannuation age is concerned. That was a case where the contention advanced before the Court was that the State Govt. must implement the UGC recommendation/scheme which was rightly held to be untenable. In the present case, the State Govt. has accepted the scheme both in terms of pay revision and enhancement of superannuation age, though on different dates. Therefore, the present case stands on a different footing. 31. Likewise in Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra), the issue before the Court was whether regulations framed by the UGC would have a binding effect on educational institutions run by the State Governments or under State enactments. The Apex Court rightly held that it was not binding. Therefore, the present case stands on a different footing. 31. Likewise in Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra), the issue before the Court was whether regulations framed by the UGC would have a binding effect on educational institutions run by the State Governments or under State enactments. The Apex Court rightly held that it was not binding. However, in the facts of that case, it was held that acceptance of the UGC scheme in its composite form was made discretionary and, therefore, there was no compulsion on the State Government and its authorities to adopt the scheme. The final decision to enhance the age of superannuation of teachers within a particular State would be that of the State itself. In the present case, the State has exercised that discretion and raised the superannuation age of teachers at par with UGC recommendations. 32. It is in this backdrop that the Cabinet decision is required to be examined. The Cabinet in its meeting held on 19.09.2012 decided that retirement age of Professors in all Colleges and Universities in Assam should be 65 years. Ordinarily, such a decision is always prospective. But as can be seen from the relevant facts culled out above, this date of 19.09.2012 is not uniformly applied throughout the State. Dibrugarh University decided to give effect to the said decision from 15.10.2012 i.e., from a subsequent date. On the other hand, Executive Council of Gauhati University in its meeting held on 07.11.2012 decided to give effect to the said decision from the date of the Cabinet decision i.e., 19.09.2012. If the contention of the respondents against retrospectivity of the Cabinet decision is accepted, even the decision of the Gauhati University dated 07.11.2012 to implement the enhanced age of superannuation from 19.09.2012 would appear to be a retrospective decision. Therefore, Court is of the considered opinion that the submission advanced by Mr. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that question of retrospectivity of the Cabinet decision vis-a-vis the petitioners really does not arise, merits consideration as it is basically a question of relating back the said Cabinet decision to the decision already taken by the University to grant revised pay scale to the petitioners as per UGC recommendation. To that extent, decision of the Cabinet is clarificatory in so far Gauhati University is concerned. To that extent, decision of the Cabinet is clarificatory in so far Gauhati University is concerned. Thus from what can be deduced from the above is that enhanced superannuation age of 65 years stood applicable to the petitioners w.e.f. October, 2008 i.e., 01.10.2008 when they were provided revised pay scale as per recommendation of UGC by treating them to be in the regular service of the University. Consequently, the decision of the Executive Council dated 07.11.2015 stating that the benefit of enhanced superannuation age would be made effective from 19.09.2012 is set aside and quashed. The effective date of implementation of the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years in respect of Gauhati University vis-a-vis the petitioners would accordingly be 01.10.2008. 33. Before concluding, a word about the private respondents i.e., respondent No. 5 to 25. They apparently do not have any conflict with the petitioners. The effective date of implementation of the enhanced superannuation age of Professors i.e., 01.10.2008 as determined by the Court would have no bearing on the service conditions of the said respondents. Therefore, their objection to the claim of the petitioners is really immaterial, rather academic. 34. In view of above, writ petition is allowed, but there shall be no order as to costs.