SC quashes Meghalaya High Court’s 2018 order on framing rules for teachers’ benefits

SHILLONG, Sep 1: The Supreme Court of India has quashed a series of directives issued by the High Court of Meghalaya in 2018 to the state government to frame rules for extending pension benefits including family pension for retired teachers and those who have expired as per the Assam Act, 1969.
The apex court also quashed another directive wherein the government was asked to take immediate care to clear the monthly salary of the teachers who had been deprived of their salaries for months together.
In addition, the top court set aside another directive asking the government to make rules that none of the teachers should lose even a single paisa of the benefits and that it should be applicable to all teachers who have joined/retired after the Statehood in 1972.
The Supreme Court also set aside the directive where the government was asked to pay the contribution which retired or serving teachers are supposed to pay from the time of Meghalaya’s inception.
The apex court also quashed the directive of the high court that no tax should be deducted on the contribution made by the teachers and another one where the government was directed to issue instructions to all colleges in that regard and if any tax is deducted at the time of contribution of the Provident Fund, that is to be refunded to the teachers immediately.
The petition was filed by the state government after feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated November 1, 2018 passed by the High Court of Meghalaya in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 281 of 2017 and 360 of 2017.
“From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HC, while issuing some of the directions, it appears that the HC has gone beyond the pleadings in the main writ petitions and/or even the reliefs prayed for/sought in the main writ petitions. Even otherwise, some of the directions which are impugned are unsustainable and could not have been issued by the HC, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” the Supreme Court said while adding that these directions could not have been issued by the HC – being policy decisions and/or being too vague while exercising the powers under Article 226.
“Insofar as the other directions issued by the HC are concerned and the relief sought in the main writ petitions are concerned, what can be culled out is that the grievance on behalf of the petitioners is non-implementation of the provisions of the Assam Non-Government School and College Employees Centralized Provident Fund Scheme Act, 1969 [the Assam Act, 1969] which has been adopted by Meghalaya into the Meghalaya Non-Government School and College Employees Centralized Provident Fund Scheme Act, 1969 [Meghalaya Act, 1969],” the Supreme Court said. The counsel appearing on behalf of the state is not disputing that the Assam Act, 1969 has been adopted by the State of Meghalaya as per the Meghalaya Act, 1969, and as such, the state is bound to implement and/or act upon the Meghalaya Act, 1969 and the regulations and/or scheme, if any, framed thereunder, the top court said.
“From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HC, there is no clarity as to which provisions of the 1969 Act and the regulations made thereunder and/or the Provident Fund Scheme adopted by the State of Meghalaya have not been implemented. The allegations are too vague. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HC, nothing can be culled out as to which part of the Meghalaya Act, 1969 and the regulations and/or scheme framed thereunder and/or even the Assam Act, 1969 are not implemented and to what extent they are not implemented. Only there are vague averments/ allegations,” the order said.
The Supreme Court said the HC ought to have given the specific findings as to which part of the Act, 1969 and the regulations, if any, framed thereunder are not implemented and/or complied with by the State before issuing any writ of mandamus.
“As there is no clarity at all and/or specific finding given by the HC as to what extent the Provident Fund Scheme framed under the Meghalaya Act, 1969 has not been followed and/or implemented, we have no other alternative but to remand the matter to the HC to consider the writ petitions afresh with respect to the allegation of non- implementation of the Provident Fund Scheme framed under Meghalaya Act, 1969,” the top court said.
Insofar as the directions issued by the HC with respect to the pension/pension scheme is concerned, in absence of any specific prayer in the writ petition(s), the same ought not to have been and/or could not have been granted by the HC. Therefore, the directions with respect to the scheme is hereby quashed and set aside.
The apex court also said that the matters are remanded to the HC to consider the grievance on behalf of the original writ petitioners with respect to non-implementation of the Meghalaya Act, 1969 and the Provident Fund Scheme under the aforesaid Act, if any.
“To that extent, it will be open for the original writ petitioners to amend the writ petitions to which it will be open for the state to file the counter. However, it is specifically made clear that the remand shall be only to consider the implementation of the Meghalaya Act, 1969 and the Provident Fund Scheme framed thereunder, if any, only and the HC on the basis of the pleadings (even after the amendment) to consider which part of the Act 1969/scheme framed under the Meghalaya Act, 1969 has not been complied with by the state and/or to what extent the same are not complied with,” the order said.
“Only for the aforesaid purpose, the matters are remanded to the HC to finally decide and dispose of the writ petitions, on remand, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the present order,” the Supreme Court said.