No, it can not.

Though the state is can differentiate as far applicability of its policies are concerned but it must be based on intelligible differentia.

In absence of that such biasness is arbitrary and unsustainable and hence can be set aside by invoking writ jurisdiction of court.

University Grant Commission in 1983 constituted a committee known as Mehrotra Committee to examine the structure of emoluments and also the conditions of service of the University and College teachers.

The Mehrotra Committee submitted its report in 1986, containing various recommendations. One of the recommendations related to extending pension-cum-gratuity scheme to the teachers of Universities and colleges.

2) government cannot selectively introduce penion in one state university and leave out others

In D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India., Supreme court stated:-

"42. If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the

pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class,

would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be

divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to

purpose of revision, and would such classification be founded

on some rational principle? The classification has to be based,

as is well settled, on some rational principle and the rational

principle must have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved.

We have set out the objects underlying the payment of pension.

If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension

scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting

these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date

simultaneously denying the same to those who retired prior to

that date. If the liberalization was considered necessary for

augmenting social security in old age to government servants

then those who retired earlier cannot be worse off than those

who retired later. Therefore, this division which classified

pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational

principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing

pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons

otherwise equally placed, it would be discriminatory. To

illustrate, take two persons, one retired just a day prior and

another a day just succeeding the specified date. Both were in

the same pay bracket, the average emolument was the same and

both had put in equal number of years of service."

The state government cannot pass an order affecting other universities of the state while passing an order favoring or benefiting one particular university, this would be considered as illegal and a writ may be filed against such order. It shall be against the rules and provisions of the UGC.

The policy clearly equates all universities of the state for computing pension on the basis of length of service completed in different autonomous bodies of the state by the employees, but while introducing pension for the first time, this equating policy was ignored and disparity created. Which article of the constitution and or the Supreme Court judgment applies?

The apex Court relied upon the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 and held that it was not permissible to create a class within class and directed the Government to extend similar benefit to pre 1.1.1996 retirees on notional basis.

The apex Court time and again considered the ratio of law held in the case of D.S. Nakara in various cases and the ratio laid down in the said case has been diluted.

The act is:

Constitution of India, Art. 14-Central Civil Services

(Pension) Rules, 1972 and Regulations governing pension for

Armed Forces Personnel-Liberalisation in computation of

pension effective from specified date-Divides pensioners so

as to confer benefit on some while denying it to others-

Classification arbitrary, devoid of rational nexus to object

of liberalisation and violative of Art. 14

Constitution of India, Art. 14-Doctrine of

severability-Severance may have effect of enlarging scope of

legislation.

Rules and Regulations governing grant of pension-

Pension is a right-Deferred portion of compensation for

service rendered-Also a social-welfare measure.

It was held in that case thus:

HELD: Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State

action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is

attracted where equals are treated differently without any

reasonable basis. The principle underlying the guarantee is

that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated

alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.

Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same

situation and there should be no discrimination between one

person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the

legislation their position is substantially the same.

Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable

classification for the purpose of legislation. The

classification must be founded on an intelligible

differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are

grouped together from those that are left out of the group

and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the

object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In

other words, there ought to be causal connection between the

basis of classification and the object of the statute. The

doctrine of classification was evolved by the Court for the

purpose of sustaining a legislation or State action designed

to help weaker sections of the society. Legislative and

executive action may accordingly be sustained by the court

if the State satisfies the twin tests of reasonable

classification and the rational principle correlated to the

object sought to be achieved. A discriminatory action is

liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by the

Government that the departure was not arbitrary but was

based on some valid principle which in itself was not

irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.