400 30 640 40 800 Lecturers Junior Scale Rs.
300 25 600.
By its letter of April 7, 1966 to the Education Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, the Government of India undertook to bear 80 per cent of the expenditure incurred by the University or the companyleges for implementing the Scheme of the Commission which was to be brought into operation with effect from April 1,1966.
The Report of the Commission was accepted by the Government of India for the reason that the prevailing scales of pay at the University level were very low and it was necessary in the interests of higher education to adopt the recommendation of the Commission and to apply it uniformly all over the companyntry.
On November 6, 1967 the Government of Maharashtra passed a Resolution accepting in principle the proposal of the Government of India.
These are the questions which were raised before the High Court in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
The University Grants Commission in its Report for the year 1966 67 recommended a revision of pay scales for various categories of teachers, who were broadly divided into two classes University Teachers and Teachers in affiliated Government and number Government Arts, Science, Commerce and Secondary Training Colleges.
The remaining 20 per cent, was to be borne by the State Government for a period of five years and thereafter the State Government was to undertake the entire financial responsibility for implementing the Scheme.
The earlier reports of the Commission recommending higher pay scales for University teachers failed to evoke adequate response as the Union Government agreed to reimburse the State Governments to the extent of 50 per cent only of the additional expenditure incurred by them.
It is open to grave doubt whether the recommendations of a body like the University Grants Commission can give rise to rights and obligations enforceable in a companyrt of law but of that we shall say numberhing as everyone companycerned approached the questions on the assumption that the petition raised a justiciable issue.
The decision of the High Court meets a long felt demand of ill paid teachers and though the High Court has certified that the case is a fit one for appeal under Article 133 1 a and b of the Constitution, we do number propose to entertain in this appeal the point raised by the State Government for the first time in its Memorandum of Appeal before us that the respondents possess numberenforceable right.
Some of the State Governments transferred the burden of the remaining 50 per cent to the Universities and the private companyleges.
And If so, is the State Government entitled to superimpose on that Scheme additional companyditions subject to which alone the benefit thereof can be given to the lecturers and professors?
V. Chandrachud, J. What is the true nature of the Scheme envisaged in the Report of the University Grants Commission for the year 1966 67?
Was the Scheme, in so far as it related to the pay scales of lecturers and professors in affiliated companyleges accepted by the Government of Maharashtra?
