Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • PRESENT: Mr. P.P Malhotra, ASG with Mr. C.B.N Babu, Advs. for the Appellant.
  • Mr. Jose Verghese with Mr. Prabhati Lal, Advs. for the Respondent No. 2.
  • Mr. S.M Mukherjee, for the Respondent No. 3. in person.
  • Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for the UGC.
Judges
  • Markandeya Katju, C.J
  • Madan B Lokur, J.
Acts
  • clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (h) or clause (i) or clause (j) of sub-section (1)
  • India.5. Section 20 of the UGC Act states:(1)
  • Section 26(1)(c) of the UGC Act
  • Section 26 (2) of the UGC Act
  • Section 25(1)(2)(d)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • PRESENT: Mr. P.P Malhotra, ASG with Mr. C.B.N Babu, Advs. for the Appellant.
  • Mr. Jose Verghese with Mr. Prabhati Lal, Advs. for the Respondent No. 2.
  • Mr. S.M Mukherjee, for the Respondent No. 3. in person.
  • Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for the UGC.
Judges
  • Markandeya Katju, C.J
  • Madan B Lokur, J.
Acts
  • clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (h) or clause (i) or clause (j) of sub-section (1)
  • India.5. Section 20 of the UGC Act states:(1)
  • Section 26(1)(c) of the UGC Act
  • Section 26 (2) of the UGC Act
  • Section 25(1)(2)(d)
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Markandeya Katju, C.J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against an impugned judgment of a learned single Judge dated 15-10-1999 which had allowed a writ petition by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the University Grants Commission (UGC) to implement its decision dated 12-12-1995 revising pay scales for certain officers. The single Judge also observed that approval of the Union of India (Central Government) was not necessary and directed the Union of India to render assistance to the UGC for implementation.

The respondent to this appeal is an association of Class I officers of the UGC. The association's writ petition alleged that the UGC, in its meeting dated 12-12-1995, decided to revise the pay scales of Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary (and equivalents) but subsequently refused to give effect to its decision on the ground that approval of the Central Government had not been obtained.

The Central Government filed a counter-affidavit asserting that the UGC had no authority to make or change service conditions of its employees without prior government approval, relying on provisions of the UGC Act and the fact that UGC is funded entirely by the Central Government. The Central Government referred to an order dated 15-5-1997 (Annexure A7) declining to accept the UGC's unilateral revision and to a subsequent notification dated 31-12-1987 (referred to in the appeal as Annexure A-8; the opinion records the date as stated in the record) issued after acceptance of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission.

This court heard the appeal, considered the statutory provisions relied upon by the parties (including Sections 10, 20, 25 and 26 of the UGC Act and the UGC (Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) rules), and on the facts set out in the record allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and held that approval of the Central Government is required before revising UGC pay scales.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the UGC has authority to revise the pay scales of its members and officers (specifically Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary equivalents) without the prior approval of the Central Government.
  2. Whether a court can issue a mandamus directing the Central Government to approve a decision of the UGC that has financial implications and is, by statute and rules, subject to the Central Government's rule-making or approval functions.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners / Association (respondent before this appeal)

  • The petitioners argued that the UGC is an autonomous body constituted under the UGC Act, 1956, and is empowered to decide terms and conditions of service of its employees.
  • They relied on Section 10 of the UGC Act which permits the Commission to appoint staff and determine terms and conditions of service, and on Section 26(1)(c) (empowering the Commission to make regulations specifying terms and conditions of employees), to contend that the Commission's decision of 12-12-1995 must be implemented without Central Government approval.
  • They alleged that rules framed in 1958 and 1983 do not prescribe that revision of pay scales has to be referred to the Central Government for approval.
  • The petitioners also contended that, having duly considered relevant factors and comparative positions within the Commission, it was appropriate for the Commission to grant the higher pay scales and that such administrative decisions did not call for interference.

Central Government (Union of India)

  • The Central Government's preliminary objection was that although the UGC is an autonomous body, it cannot make or change service conditions of its employees without prior approval of the government.
  • It relied on Section 26(2) of the UGC Act which provides that certain regulations (including those under clause (c) of subsection (1)) cannot be made except with previous approval of the Central Government.
  • The Central Government also relied on Section 25 (power to make rules by notification), in particular provisions enabling the Central Government to make rules about terms and conditions of service of employees (quoted in the opinion), to contend that the Central Government either exclusively frames such rules or its approval must be obtained.
  • It emphasized that UGC is entirely financed by the Central Government and that approval is required before incurring financial liabilities; unilateral revisions could create disruptive repercussions and disturb parity and inter se relativities among organizations funded by the government.
  • The government pointed to its decision (Annexure A7 dated 15-5-1997) declining the UGC proposal as likely to create wide repercussions and to a later notification issued after acceptance of the 5th Pay Commission's recommendations (Annexure A-8 dated 31-12-1987 as recorded in the file) which did not approve the UGC's unilateral revision.

University Grants Commission (UGC)

  • The UGC had, in its meeting dated 12-12-1995, decided to revise pay scales for Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary equivalents but subsequently did not give effect to that decision on the ground that approval of the Central Government had not been obtained.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded by reference to the statutory text and to the practical realities arising from the UGC's funding source. The reasoning can be outlined step-by-step as follows:

  1. Statutory provisions considered:
    • Section 20 was quoted and noted (directions to the Commission by Central Government on questions of policy relating to national purposes).
    • Section 10 (staff of the Commission) was noted, which permits the Commission to appoint staff and determine terms and conditions of service.
    • Section 26(1)(c) was relied upon by petitioners as empowering the Commission to make regulations specifying terms and conditions of employees; but Section 26(2) states that regulations under certain clauses of subsection (1) require previous approval of the Central Government.
    • Section 25 (powers of the Central Government to make rules by notification) was also considered; the court cited Section 25(1)(2)(d) (as recorded in the opinion) indicating the Central Government may make rules including terms and conditions of service of Commission employees.
  2. Interpretation and application of the statutory scheme:
    • The court observed that a combined reading of Sections 25 and 26 shows that the Central Government either frames the terms and conditions of service of employees of the Commission or, at the least, its approval is required when regulations are to be made under the identified clauses of Section 26(1).
    • Because Section 26(2) explicitly requires previous approval of the Central Government for regulations made under specified clauses of subsection (1), the Commission cannot be taken to have unfettered power to change pay scales without approval where those regulations fall within the clauses requiring such approval.
  3. Practical and financial considerations:
    • The court emphasized that the entire funds of the UGC are provided by the Central Government. Given this, any decision by the UGC that has financial implications logically requires prior approval of the Central Government.
    • The court rejected an interpretation that would allow the Commission to unilaterally raise salaries and allowances to levels the Central Government might not be able to afford; such an interpretation would lead to absurd or impractical results and was to be eschewed.
  4. On the scope of judicial relief against the Central Government:
    • The court held that the decision whether to approve the UGC's revision of pay scales is entirely within the discretion of the Central Government. Consequently, no writ of mandamus can be issued by the court to compel the Central Government to approve the Commission's decision, because approval is a discretionary executive act.
  5. Assessment of the single Judge's approach:
    • The appellate court noted that the learned single Judge appeared to have been influenced by concerns about frustration and interests of the officers (sympathy). The appellate court stated the case must be decided on legal principles rather than sympathies and disagreed with the single Judge's conclusion that Central Government approval was unnecessary.
  6. Consideration of earlier administrative decisions:
    • The court referred to the Central Government's earlier order of 15-5-1997 (Annexure A7) declining to accept UGC's unilateral revision because acceptance would have repercussions, disturb parity and relativities, and increase administrative costs borne by government funding; the Court also noted the subsequent government notification issued on acceptance of the 5th Pay Commission which did not approve the UGC's unilateral revision (Annexure A-8 as recorded).

Holding and Implications

Holding: This appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 15-10-1999 is set aside. It is held that the approval of the Central Government is required before revising the pay scales of members and officers of the UGC.

Implications

  • Direct effect on the parties: The UGC's decision dated 12-12-1995 to revise pay scales remains ineffective until approved by the Central Government. The writ of mandamus previously issued by the single Judge directing implementation is set aside.
  • Scope of judicial compulsion: The court held that it cannot issue a mandamus to the Central Government to approve the UGC decision, because approval is a matter of executive discretion.
  • Practical consequence for similar administrative actions: Where a statutory scheme assigns rule-making power or requires prior approval of the Central Government and where financial implications exist (particularly where the Commission is funded by the Central Government), the Commission must obtain the Central Government's approval before implementing changes to terms and conditions of service such as pay scales.
  • On precedent/new law: The opinion records a statutory interpretation-based ruling as to the necessity of Central Government approval in these circumstances. The decision reverses the single Judge's order and establishes, for the facts before this court, that the Central Government's approval is required before the UGC may make effective revisions to pay scales of its officers.

This summary is confined to and derived exclusively from the contents of the provided opinion and does not add or infer information beyond what the opinion contains.

Show full summary ...

    Union Of India v. Ugc Class-I Officers Association

    Markandeya Katju, C.J— This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 15-10-1999 by which he has allowed the writ petition.

    2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

    3. By the impugned judgment the learned single Judge has issued a writ of mandamus to the University Grants Commission (UGC) to implement its decision dated 12-12-1995. The learned single Judge has further observed that the approval of the Union of India is not necessary for this purpose, and the Union of India shall render all assistance to the UGC for implementation of the decision taken by the UGC on 12-12-1995.

    4. The respondent (petitioner) is an association of class I officers of the UGC. The UGC was constituted under UGC Act 1956 with a view to provide for coordination and determination of standards in the universities in India.

    5. Section 20 of the UGC Act states:

    (1) “In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes as may be given to it by the Central Government”

    (2) If any dispute arises between the Central Government and the Commission as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy relating to national purposes, the decision of the Central Government shall be final.”

    6. It is alleged in para 5 of the writ petition that there are three posts of Additional Secretaries and equivalent and 16 posts of Joint Secretaries and equivalent in the Commission. The petitioner association through the writ petition raised the issue of grant of higher pay scales to the officers holding the post of Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary and equivalent posts.

    7. In paras 5 and 6 of the writ petition the respondents have mentioned in great detail about the background of the pay scales and other related matters.

    8. In para 7 it is stated that the Commission after having duly considered the long standing demand of the petitioners, panel decided in its meeting dated 12-12-1995 that the pay scale of Joint Secretary be revised from Rs. 4500-5700/- to Rs. 5100-6300/- and that an Additional Secretary from Rs. 5100-5700/- to Rs. 5900-6700/-. However, the Commission subsequently refused to give effect to its own order on the ground that the approval of the government has not been obtained.

    9. The petitioners contention is that the Commission is an autonomous organization and there is no requirement to obtain approval of the government in this connection.

    10. The respondents have relied on section 10 of the ugc act which states:

    “Staff of the Commission.—Subject to such rules as may be made by the Central Government in this behalf, the Commission may appoint a Secretary and such other employees as it may think necessary for the efficient performance of its functions under this Act and the terms and conditions of service of the employees shall be such as may be determined by the Commission.”

    11. It is alleged in the petition that the Central Government has framed rules in 1958 and 1983 but none of these rules prescribe that the matter regarding revision of pay scales has to be referred to the government for its approval.

    12. The petitioner has also relied on Section 26(1)(c) of the UGC Act which empowers the Commission to make regulations specifying the terms and conditions of the employees appointed by the commission.

    13. The respondent (petitioner) contended that it is for the Commission to decide the terms and conditions of service including pay scales. The Commission being an autonomous body its decision dated 12-12-1995 has to be implemented. In para 7 of the petition it is alleged that the Commission before taking the decision had duly taken note of the fact that the pay scale of the Secretary and Financial Advisor of the Commission has been revised from 1-1-1986, as also other factors highlighted by the petitioner from time to time. In fact it was thought appropriate to agree to the demand of the petitioner for higher pay scale to its officers and this does not call for any interference.

    14. The petitioner association had submitted a memorandum dated 23-8-1994 to the 5th Central Pay Commission appointed by the Government of India, but the pay Commission by letter dated 24.1.1995 informed that autonomous organizations are not under the purview of the pay commission.

    15. A counter affidavit was filed by the Central Government, Union of India in the writ petition. In para 1 of the preliminary objections therein it was stated that the UGC, although an autonomous body constituted under the UGC Act, 1956 has no authority to make or change the service conditions of its employees on its own without the prior approval of the government. The respondents have relied on Section 26 (2) of the UGC Act which states:

    “No regulation shall be made under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (h) or clause (i) or clause (j) of sub-section (1) except with the previous approval of the Central Government.”

    16. Thus it is alleged that the Commission has no authority either to frame regulations specifying the terms and conditions of its employees or to change the pay scales without prior approval of the Central Government. This is particularly so because UGC is entirely financed by the Central Government.

    17. There is no dispute that the UGC did not obtain prior approval of the Central Government before revising the pay scales by its order dated 12-12-1995.

    18. The Central Government has also relied on Section 25 of the Act which states:

    “(i) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.

    (ii) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:

    (a) the terms and conditions of service of employees appointed by the commission.”

    19. Thus it is contended by learned counsel for the Central Government that both Sections 25 and 26 make it clear that the Central Government alone can make rules specifying the terms and conditions of service of its employees, or at least its approval has to be obtained by the Commission.

    20. The Commission has no independent source of income and all its expenditure is borne by the Central Government. Hence also it is alleged that the approval of the Central Government has to be taken before incurring any financial liability.

    21. It is also alleged that the terms and conditions of service of the Central Government employees cannot be looked into for claiming parity for employees of the University or Commission as they are all performing different kinds of duties. The members of the association are not performing duties of lecturers/readers or professors but they are performing administrative duties. Hence, they cannot claim parity with the professors/readers/lecturers or scientists in the universities.

    22. The members of the association are getting pay scales as per the recommendations of 4th Central Pay Commission which was approved for them by the Central Government. Until the Central Government approves payment of pay scales of the 5th Central Pay Commission for them they cannot get those pay scales. The decision of the commission is not binding on the Central Government.

    23. On the facts of the case we are of the opinion that this appeal has to be allowed.

    24. There is no dispute that the UGC did not take the approval of the Central Government for its decision dated 12.12.1995

    25. A perusal of the various provisions of the UGC Act which have been referred to above clearly show that it is the Central Government which frames the terms and conditions of the service of employees of the Commission vide Section 25(1)(2)(d) or at least its approval is required vide section 26(2) particularly when there are financial implications.

    26. It may be noted that the entire funds of the UGC come from the Central Government. Hence it is only logical that before taking any decision which has financial implications the approval of the Central Government has to be taken by the UGC. If we take a different interpretation then it will follow that the UGC can raise the salaries and allowances of its members and employees even to exorbitant levels which the Central Government may not be in a financial position to bear. Clearly such an interpretation which results in absurdity is to be eschewed.

    27. Hence we are in agreement with the counsel for the Central Government that the decision of the UGC dated 12.12.1995 would remain ineffective until it has been approved by the Central Government, and no direction can be issued by the Court to the Central Government to approve the aforesaid decision. It is entirely in the discretion of the Central Government to approve the decision of the Commission dated 12.12.1995 or not to do so, and no mandamus can be issued by the court as it is purely a discretionary matter.

    28. It may be noted that the Central Government had made rules known as UGC (Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) 1983 in which various posts were mentioned along with their pay scales. Hence it follows that if the pay scale is to be revised by the Commission it has to take approval of the Central Government as the same is subject to the general financial limit of the budget expected by the Government of India for UGC. It follows that any decision of the UGC relating to pay scales which has an effect on the grant made by the Central Government must have prior approval/sanction of the Central Government. It may be noted that the functions and duties of the Additional Secretaries and Joint Secretaries of UGC are not similar to those of Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary in the Central Government. They are also not similar to teaching posts in the universities. Hence there can be no question of parity in the pay scales.

    29. The petitioner association had filed a writ petition No. 4656/96 before this court for a mandamus against the Commission for implementation of its decision or revision of the pay scales of its order dated 12.12.1995 and vide order dated 5.5.1997 this court had directed the Central Government to dispose of the representation of the officers of the UGC by a reasoned order. Pursuant to the same the Central Government passed an order dated 15.5.1997, which is Annexure A7 to this appeal. In that decision it was mentioned that modification of the pay scales of the UGC may create repercussions in other organizations which have been permitted to adopt pay scales based on the 4th Pay Commission recommendations. The 5th Pay Commission has already submitted its report to the government which is under consideration. It was therefore thought appropriate to await the decision of the government on the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission rather than take piece meal decisions which will create distortions in the relativities of pay scales. Hence the government was unable to consider any merits in the request of UGC for revision of pay scales for Additional Secretaries and Joint Secretaries in the UGC. It was observed that raising the pay scales would have large scale repercussions and would disturb the recognized parity structure and also inter se relativities between different organizations. It would also amount to an organization which is funded by the government increasing its administrative cost by such unilateral revision of scales. Hence it was decided that it will not be possible to agree with the proposal of the Commission for higher scales of pay than those sanctioned to the Additional Secretaries and Joint Secretaries in the light of the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission. It was further observed that on acceptance of recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission by the government the question of granting new scales will be considered.

    30. Subsequently on acceptance of pay scales of the 5th Pay Commission the Central Government issued notification dated 31.12.1987 for revision of pay scales of officers of the UGC. True copy of the notification dated 31.12.1997 is Annexure A-8 to this appeal. It was decided by the Central Government that it was not possible to approve and accept the unilateral revision recommended/made by the UGC for its Additional Secretaries and Joint Secretaries.

    31. We fully agree with the submission of the learned counsel of the Central Government that the UGC has no power to take a unilateral decision regarding pay scales of its officers as such view would mean that the Commission need not even bother about the financial capacity of the Central Government to pay a higher pay scale. After all the funds have to come from the Central Government and hence an interpretation should be taken of the Act and Rules which is practical.

    32. It appears from a perusal of para 30 of the impugned judgment that the learned single Judge was swayed by the fact that if the pay scales are not revised the officers of the UGC would get frustrated and their interest would be affected. We are of the opinion that the case has to be decided on legal principles and not on sympathies. We respectfully disagree with the learned single Judge that approval of the Central Government is not necessary for fixing the pay scale of members and officers of the UGC.

    33. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and it is held that the approval of the Central Government is required before revising the pay scales of members and officers of the UGC.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Union Of India v. Ugc Class-I Officers Association
    (Nov 29, 2005)