Pre-2006 retiree teachers won't get revised UGC pension: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the revision of pay by the University Grants Commission (UGC) scheme, specifically with effect from January 1, 2006, does not envisage a revision of pension of teachers who had already retired prior to that date. A division bench comprising Justices Anu Sivaraman and Umesh M Adiga said this while allowing the writ appeal filed by the state government.

In 2008, the UGC pay scale was revised for teaching faculty on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and the discretion to extend these benefits to retirees prior to January 1, 2006 was rested with the state government, as recognised under the UGC regulations. On January 7, 2013, the state government issued an order revising pensions only for those who retired on or after January 1, 2006.

On March 22, 2019, a single bench had directed the state government to disburse the revised pensions along with arrears in four equal installments, commencing from June 1, 2019. The judgement was in the petitions by retired Professors and Teachers from Universities and Colleges under the Higher Education, Collegiate Education. The single bench judgment was based on the principle of rationality and parity between the teachers who retired before and after January 1, 2006.

In its appeal, the state government contended that the single bench had failed to consider the substantial enormous financial burden of Rs 477 crore arising from retrospective pension revisions. The state also said that the December 31, 2008 communication by the Central government explicitly provided prospective implementation of the UGC pay scales.

On the other hand, the teachers submitted that in 2011, the Karnataka State Higher Education Council (KSHEC) had resolved to revise the UGC pay scales and pensionary benefits even to the teachers of state universities and colleges, who retired prior to January 1, 2006.

Perusing the judgements placed by the parties, the division bench observed that there is no proposition in any of the decisions that a revision of pay from a particular date has to be given effect to prior retirees to calculate their pension as well.

The bench set aside the finding of the single bench and held that the scheme was not a composite scheme consisting of pension also, instead only a pay revision with an effective date. “We find nothing in the Scheme or the orders produced before us that would support the contention that persons who retired before the date of effect of the pay revision are entitled to revision of their pension,” the bench said.

Insofar as the recommendation of KSHEC, the bench said that it cannot dictate the terms governing the service conditions including pension of retired employees in the absence of any binding provision in the scheme in question.