right to receive pension as per the revised formula.= under the Statute 16 (which has been in force from 1982), it is specifically provided that any change in the rate of pension or relief therein into the service conditions of the State Government employees would be extended to the University. = Therefore, in our view, the Division Bench cannot be faulted for taking the view that the reading of Statute read with the resolution passed by the State Government, University employees will be entitled to include 50% of the D.A. into their basic pay for the purposes of calculating their pension.= It is interesting to note that the University was a party to the Writ Petition but the University did not challenge the decision rendered either by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench. 12. In view of this position, in our view, there is no reason to entertain this appeal. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40601
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2011


STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.                             APPELLANTS

                 VERSUS

SUDHIR CHANDRA KUMAR & ORS.                      RESPONDENTS

WITH C.A.NO.205/2011,  206/2011,  207/2011,  208/2011,  209/2011,  210/2011,
202/2011, 203/2011, 201/2011 AND 204/2011.


                                  O R D E R


      1.         We have heard Mr.Manish Kumar,  learned  counsel  appearing
      for the appellant State of Bihar  and  Mr.P.N.Mishra,  learned  senior
      counsel appearing for the respondent no.1  and  Mr.Atul  Jha,  learned
      counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 6 in C.A.No.200 of 2011 etc.
      and other respective counsel in the connected appeals.


      2.         Since the facts arising from all these appeals are similar,
      we take Civil Appeal No.200 of 2011 as the lead case.


      Civil Appeal No.200/2011:


      3.         This appeal, by  special  leave,  seeks  to  challenge  the
      judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2008 passed by the High  Court  of
      Judicature at Patna in L.P.A.No.439 of 2008.   This  judgment  allowed
      the appeal filed by the respondents concerning their
right to  receive
      pension as per the revised formula.
                 The short facts leading to this appeal are this-wise:


                                    : 2 :
      4.         The respondents are the teachers working  in  T.M.Bhagalpur
      University.  Their case was that the State of Bihar had merged 50%  of
      the Dearness Allowance (for short 'D.A.') into the basic pay  for  the
      purposes  of  calculating  the  pension,  vide  its  resolution  dated
      11.04.2005  and  which  resolution  was  to  be  given   effect   from
      01.01.2005.  It was pointed out by them that in spite  of  passing  of
      this resolution, the benefit thereof was not being given to  them.  In
      this  regard,  it  may  be  pertinent  to  quote  Statute  16  of  the
      University, which reads as follows :
           “16.  An  employee  eligible  for  pension  under  any  of   the
           categories mentioned above, shall be granted  pension  according
           to the scales given in schedule 'A' (I) if he ceased  to  be  in
           University service between  1-4-72  and  31-12-72  and  schedule
           A(ii) if he ceased to be in University  service  between  1-1-73
           and 30-3-79. For those who ceased to be  in  University  service
           from 31-3-79 onwards, the scales given in Schedule  A(iii)  will
           be applicable.  Any further change in the rate  of  pension   as
           also relief in pension under the  Bihar  (Govt.)  Pension  Rules
           will be equally applicable to the University employees (emphasis
           supplied)”


      5.         It was their submission that  the Statute  was specifically
      enacted for the purposes  of  calculating  the  pension.  Any  further
      change in the rate of pension as also  relief  in  pension  under  the
      Bihar Government  Pension  Rules  will,  therefore,  be  automatically
      applicable to the University employees. The learned Single  Judge  had
      disposed of their Writ Petition in  the light of the orders passed  by
      the Court in an earlier Writ Petition bearing No.CWJC 13925  of  2006,
      dated 31.10.2007.  The effect   of that would be that only those who
                                    : 3 :
      retire subsequent to 1st January, 2005 would be getting  the  benefits
      of this changed formula. The respondents, therefore, filed  an  L.P.A.
      wherein the aforesaid  submission,  based  on  Statute  16,  has  been
      accepted by the Division Bench.


      6.         Being aggrieved by this judgment and order,  present  Civil
      Appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar.


      7.          Mr.Manish  Kumar,  learned  counsel  appearing   for   the
      appellant-State, submitted that the State Government cannot be made to
      bear the burden which will arise  out  of  this  responsibility.   His
      submission is that this resolution of the State Government  was  meant
      only for the State Government employees  and  not  for  anybody  else.
      There is no dispute that under this resolution of  11th  April,  2005,
      the State Government has decided that 50% of the D.A. will  be  merged
      in the basic pay for the purposes of calculating the pension, and this
      will be with effect from 1st January, 2005.  This was in the back-drop
      of the Central Government taking a similar decision earlier  from  1st
      March, 2004. Obviously, there must have been similar demands from  the
      State Government employees and,  therefore,  this  decision  from  the
      State Government.


      8.          Mr.Manish  Kumar,  submits  that  the  University  is  not
      supposed to create financial liabilities for the  government  and  his
      submission  has  been  that    wherever   there   is   any   financial
      implication    under  any   of   the  statutes, those financial
                                    : 4 :
      implications are not enforceable unless prior approval  of  the  State
      Government has been obtained.  He has  relied  upon  Statute  No.36(6)
      and, particularly, the proviso thereof.   The  Statute  36(6)  proviso
      reads as follows :
           “...36(6).....
           “Provided that if there be any financial implication  which  may
           arise under the statute, it  shall  not  be  enforceable  unless
           prior approval of State Government has been obtained.”




      9.         He also pointed out that as far  as  the  creation  of  the
      posts and payment to the teachers and the employees in the  University
      are concerned, though the decisions are taken by the  University,  the
      responsibility with respect to the payment of salaries etc. is on  the
      State Government and that is why the above provision is made into  the
      proviso in Statute No36(6).
      10.        It is, however, material to  note  that,  as  far  as  this
      proviso is concerned, it has been substituted by Act No.16 of 2008.
As
      far as present resolution of the State Government is concerned, it  is
      dated 11th April, 2005, which is much prior to the coming  into  force
      of this proviso to Statute 36(6).
That apart, as we have seen,
under
 the Statute 16 (which has been in force from 1982), it is specifically provided that any change in the rate  of  pension  or  relief  therein  into the service conditions of the State Government employees would be extended to the University.  
Therefore,  in  our  view,  the  Division Bench cannot be faulted for  taking  the  view  that  the  reading  of Statute read with the  resolution  passed  by  the  State  Government,University   employees will be entitled to include
                                    : 5 :
      50% of the D.A. into their basic pay for the purposes  of  calculating their pension.


      11.        It is interesting to note that the University was  a  party
      to the Writ Petition but the University did not challenge the decision rendered either by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench.


      12.        In view of this position, in our view, there is  no  reason
      to entertain this appeal. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
      No costs.


      C.A.NO.205/2011, 206/2011,  207/2011,  208/2011,  209/2011,  210/2011,
      202/2011, 203/2011, 201/2011 AND 204/2011.


      13.        In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.200 of 2011,
      all the appeals stand disposed of with similar order.




                                                   .......................J.
                                                              (H.L. GOKHALE)






                                                   .......................J.
                                                            (J. CHELAMESWAR)


      NEW DELHI;
      JULY 23, 2013