Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Repeal and Savings STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS Act 06 of 2020.- It is considered necessary to regulate pay, pension and pensionary benefits admissible to the teacher working in Government Colleges, Universities established by law and in Government aided Higher Educational Institutions under the control of the State Government. Whereas under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India and under Entries 14, 32 and 41of List II and under Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Legislature of the State may by law regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the instrumentalities of the State of Karnataka: Whereas a teacher in Higher Educational Institutions drawing UGC/AICTE/ICAR or modified AICTE pay scales are employed by the State Government or aided Colleges or institutions appointed to officiate in a post is entitled to draw the presumptive pay of that post and the pension and pensionary benefits of such teacher is determined with reference to the applicable Rules / orders governing grant of pension at the time of retirement or superannuation or death as the case may be. 2 Whereas the retired teacher of UGC/ICAR/AICTE or modified AICTE Pay Scales are on par with the rest of the State Government pensioners for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. Further, it is also an established policy of the State Government that the pension and pensionary benefits of teachers and equivalent cadre staff on UGC/ICAR/AICTE or modified AICTE scales of pay working in institutions maintained and aided by State Government shall be determined as per the Rules of the State Government. The cut-off date in respect of revision of pay and pension is decided taking into consideration the huge financial implications of pay revision and other relevant factors like Central Government financial assistance, if any, etc., Whereas, as a matter of precedent policy the pension of the retired teachers who retired prior to the cut-off date of the subsequent pay revision is subjected to further revision, as and when the corresponding revision of pay scales are effected as per decision of the State Government. Whereas, the Karnataka State Higher Education Council is an Advisory body to the State Government regarding Academic matter pertaining to Higher Education and no power is given to the said Council under the Karnataka State Higher Education Council Act, 2010 (Karnataka Act No.26 of 2010) to recommend or advice on revision of pay or pension to teachers of Higher Educational Institutions. Any adviseor suggestion by the council is not binding on the State Government. Whereas the Government in Order dated: 24.07.2015 rejected the recommendation of the Karnataka State Higher Education Council to extend the 2006 UGC pay scale prior to 01.01.2006 retirees. This was challenged in the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 775-787/2015 (S- R). Allowing the said writ petition, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has observed as follows namely;- “The State is required to demonstrate that the case of the petitioners falls under Category II as enunciated by their Lordships in V.Kasturi (supra). The meaning of the words “permissible in law” in this context means the inherently differentiable separate classification in law, projected as Category II in V. Kasturi (supra). The State has failed to point out that the fixing of cut-off date was inherently permissible under a specific provision of Law. No justifiable reason or rationale in fixing the cut-off date is provided by the State, except pointing out to the effective date fixed in the Government Order dated: 24.12.2009 of Government of India and communicated dated: 11.03.2010, issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development. The artificial classification by fixing a cut-off date is nothing but creating a class with a class, which is not permissible. The law laid down in Nakara (supra) that the object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a 3 class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class, continues to hold the field even to this date. The artificial classification sought to be made by the State does not satisfy the test of Article 14.” Whereas, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of B.J.Akkara and Ors. V/s GOI&Ors. [(2006) 11 SCC 709] has enunciated certain well settled principles of fixation of pension and grant of pension, accordingly all retirees retiring with a particular rank do not form a single class for all purposes. Pensioners who retired with same rank need not be given identical pension where the average reckonable emoluments at the time of retirement were different in view of the difference in pay or in view of different pay scales being in force. The principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case is in accordance with the policy of the State as well. Whereas, in Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others v/s State of Bihar and others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 633, the Apex Court has categorically held that UGC regulations are not automatically binding on the State since the plenary power of the State cannot be curtailed by such regulations even though the UGC regulations have statutory force. In the present fact situation comes within the ambit of State policy and the policy decision of the State Government not to extend the revised pensionary benefits to teachers who have retired prior to 01.01.2006 is incompliance with the dicta in Jagdish Prasad Sharma. Whereas, the Central Government in the letter dated:11.03.2010 had indicated that, it was not mandatory for State Government to give the benefit of revision of pension structure as contemplated in letter dated:11.03.2010 to the teachers of State Universities and Colleges on UGC pay scales, who retired prior to 01.01.2006 and as such, as per the discretionary powers vested in State Government it was decided not to give benefit vide letter dated:11.03.2010 of Government of India. Whereas, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v/s S.Thakur [(2009) (1) SCC (L&S)329] has held that ‘ it is the function of the executive to decide on the admissible revised pay scale and scope of judicial review of such an administrative decision is very limited’. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India V/s Maniklal Banerjee [2006 SCC (L&S) 1959] has held ‘that fixation of cutoff date based upon the financial implication is relevant factor while revising the pay scale’. Whereas, grant of pension or determination of pension retrospectively based on the subsequent revision of pay scales is against the policy of the State and against the rules framed by the State Government. Any decision to grant enhanced pension retrospectively based on the subsequent revision of pay scale is not the policy of the State Government. Teachers ceased to be in service as on the date of subsequent revision of pay scale constitute a 4 separate class by themselves. They cannot be equated with teachers whose pay has been revised subsequently. Further, it involves payment of large sums of money and it will be a huge financial burden to the State Exchequer. And whereas it is necessary and expedient to clear the ambiguity in fixation of pension and grant of pensionary benefits to the teacher, who has retired before revision of UGC/ICAR/AICTE or modified AICTE scales of pay: Since, the matter was urgent and both the houses of the State Legislature were not in session, the Karnataka Regulation of Pay and Pension of Teachers in Higher Educational Institutions Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance No.1 of 2020) was promulgated to achieve the above object. This Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance. Hence the Bill. [L.A. Bill No. 10 of 2020, File No. Samvyashae 07 Shasana 2020] [entry 32 and 41 of List II and under Entry 25 of list III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.] [Published in Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary No. 145 in part-IV dated: 22.04.2020] 5 KARNATAKA ACT NO. 06 OF 2020 (First Published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary on the 22nd day of April, 2020) THE KARNATAKA REGULATION OF PAY AND PENSION OF TEACHER IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 2020 (Received the assent of the Governor on the 21st day of April, 2020) An Act to regulate pay, pension and pensionary benefits admissible to the teacher working in Government Colleges, Universities established by law and in Government aided Higher Educational Institutions under the control of the State Government. Whereas under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India and under Entries 14, 32 and 41of List II and under Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Legislature of the State may by law regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the instrumentalities of the State of Karnataka: Whereas a teacher in Higher Educational Institutions drawing UGC/AICTE/ICAR or modified AICTE pay scales are employed by the State Government or aided Colleges or institutions appointed to officiate in a post is entitled to draw the presumptive pay of that post and the pension and pensionery benefits of such teacher is determined with reference to the applicable Rules / orders governing grant of pension at the time of retirement or superannuation or death as the case may be. Whereas the retired teacher of UGC/ICAR/AICTE or modified AICTE Pay Scales are on par with the rest of the State Government pensioners for the purpose of pension and pensionery benefits. Further, it is also an established policy of the State Government that the pension and pensionery benefits of teachers and equivalent cadre staff on UGC/ICAR/AICTE or modified AICTE scales of pay working in institutions maintained and aided by State Government shall be determined as per the Rules of the State Government. The cut-off date in respect of revision of pay and pension is decided taking into consideration the huge financial implications of pay revision and other relevant factors like Central Government financial assistance, if any, etc., Whereas, as a matter of precedent policy the pension of the retired teachers who retired prior to the cut-off date of the subsequent pay revision is subjected to further revision, as and when the corresponding revision of pay scales are effected as per decision of the State Government. Whereas, the Karnataka State Higher Education Council is an Advisory body to the State Government regarding Academic matter pertaining to Higher Education and no power is given to the said Council under the Karnataka State Higher Education Council Act, 2010 (Karnataka Act No.26 of 2010) to recommend or advice on revision of pay or pension to 6 teachers of Higher Educational Institutions. Any advise or suggestion by the council is not binding on the State Government. Whereas the Government in Order dated: 24.07.2015 rejected the recommendation of the Karnataka State Higher Education Council to extend the 2006 UGC pay scale prior to 01.01.2006 retirees. This was challenged in the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 775-787/2015 (S- R). Allowing the said writ petition, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has observed as follows, namely;- “The State is required to demonstrate that the case of the petitioners falls under Category II as enunciated by their Lordships in V.Kasturi (supra). The meaning of the words “permissible in law” in this context means the inherently differentiable separate classification in law, projected as Category II in V. Kasturi (supra). The State has failed to point out that the fixing of cut-off date was inherently permissible under a specific provision of Law. No justifiable reason or rationale in fixing the cut-off date is provided by the State, except pointing out to the effective date fixed in the Government Order dated: 24.12.2009 of Government of India and communicated dated: 11.03.2010, issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development. The artificial classification by fixing a cut-off date is nothing but creating a class with a class, which is not permissible. The law laid down in Nakara (supra) that the object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class, continues to hold the field even to this date. The artificial classification sought to be made by the State does not satisfy the test of Article 14.” Whereas, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of B.J.Akkara and Ors. V/s GOI&Ors. [(2006) 11 SCC 709] has enunciated certain well settled principles of fixation of pension and grant of pension, accordingly all retirees retiring with a particular rank do not form a single class for all purposes. Pensioners who retired with same rank need not be given identical pension where the average reckonable emoluments at the time of retirement were different in view of the difference in pay or in view of different pay scales being in force. The principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case is in accordance with the policy of the State as well. Whereas, in Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others v/s State of Bihar and others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 633, the Apex Court has categorically held that UGC regulations are not automatically binding on the State since the plenary power of the State cannot be curtailed by such regulations even though the UGC regulations have statutory force. In the present fact situation comes within the ambit of State policy and the policy decision of 7 the State Government not to extend the revised pensionary benefits to teachers who have retired prior to 01.01.2006 is in compliance with the dicta in Jagdish Prasad Sharma. Whereas, the Central Government in the letter dated:11.03.2010 had indicated that, it was not mandatory for State Government to give the benefit of revision of pension structure as contemplated in letter dated:11.03.2010 to the teachers of State Universities and Colleges on UGC pay scales, who retired prior to 01.01.2006 and as such, as per the discretionary powers vested in State Government it was decided not to give benefit vide letter dated:11.03.2010 of Government of India. Whereas, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v/s S.Thakur [(2009) (1) SCC (L&S)329] has held that ‘ it is the function of the executive to decide on the admissible revised pay scale and scope of judicial review of such an administrative decision is very limited’. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India V/s Maniklal Banerjee [2006 SCC (L&S) 1959] has held ‘that fixation of cutoff date based upon the financial implication is relevant factor while revising the pay scale’. Whereas, grant of pension or determination of pension retrospectively based on the subsequent revision of pay scales is against the policy of the State and against the rules framed by the State Government. Any decision to grant enhanced pension retrospectively based on the subsequent revision of pay scale is not the policy of the State Government. Teachers ceased to be in service as on the date of subsequent revision of pay scale constitute a separate class by themselves. They cannot be equated with teachers whose pay has been revised subsequently. Further, it involves payment of large sums of money and it will be a huge financial burden to the State Exchequer. And whereas it is necessary and expedient to clear the ambiguity in fixation of pension and grant of pensionery benefits to the teacher, who has retired before revision of UGC/ICAR/AICTE or modified AICTE scales of pay: Be it enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature in the seventy first year of the Republic of India, as follows:-