RE-EMPLOYED TEACHERS ENTITLED TO RETROSPECTIVE PAY REVISION BENEFITS ABSENT SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONARY CLAUSES IN UGC SCHEME

The respondents (writ petitioners) were college teachers who superannuated between January 1, 2006, and April 1, 2009, and were subsequently re-employed for five years under a 1979 State notification

They sought the release of 80% arrears of the Central Government's share of revised pay for the period Jan 1, 2006, to March 31, 2009, following the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations

The State of West Bengal challenged a Single Judge order dated August 31, 2017, which had directed the State to pay these arrears

The State contended that the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) scheme of 2008 was intended only for substantive post holders/regular employees and not for re-employed teachers

They further relied on State notifications from 2013 and 2014 that explicitly excluded re-employed teachers from the revised pay scheme

1. Whether teachers re-employed post-superannuation are entitled to the benefits of the revised pay scale (6th CPC) for the period of their re-employment between 2006 and 2009.

2. Whether the State notifications issued in 2013 and 2014, which explicitly excluded re-employed teachers, could be applied retrospectively to deny benefits sanctioned under the 2008 MHRD Scheme.

The Court primarily considered the "Scheme of revision of pay... following the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission" notified by the MHRD via memo dated December 31, 2008, which provided 80% Central financial assistance for pay revision to States opting for the scale

The Court also interpreted the State notification dated November 15/16, 1979, which mandates that re-employment must be in the "appropriate existing scale of pay" on which the teacher retired

Furthermore, the court applied the principle of non-retrospectivity, holding that executive notifications cannot curtail vested rights or existing schemes retrospectively unless specifically authorized

The Court observed that the writ petitioners were superannuated and re-employed strictly in accordance with the 1979 notification, which required placing them in the scale of pay they held at retirement

Crucially, the 2008 MHRD Scheme contained no specific clause or bar debarring re-employed teachers from the revised pay benefits

The Central Government had already released 80% of the funds to the State for the period 2006–2009, and the State had even disbursed its 20% share in some instances, thereby acknowledging the entitlement

The Court rejected the State's reliance on the 2013 and 2014 notifications, reasoning that these restrictive memos were issued long after the 2008 Scheme and could not be given retrospective effect to deny benefits for the period 2006–2009

Since the teachers held substantive posts as of January 1, 2006, their subsequent re-employment did not negate their right to the revised scales applicable to those posts

The Court directed the release of the ₹1,20,00,000/- secured with the Registrar General back to the State for the purpose of compliance/refund, subject to formalities. The writ petitioners' entitlement to the balance arrears was upheld