SHIDDABASANNAGOUDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA — 1984 DIGILAW 394 (KAR)

M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER was initially an employee of the Government of the then Mysore state in the Department of Agriculture. He was appointed as lecturer in Agricultural economics at the Agricultural College at Dharwar by the Government in the year 1960 it will he useful to state that at that point of time the two colleges of the state were run by the Government and the colleges were affiliated to one or the other university which had jurisdiction over them However in 1965, the University of Agricultural Sciences was established under the provisions of University of agricultural Sciences Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the UAS Act ). As a cor. sequence, the two agricultural Colleges stood transferred to the new University together with the staff, who opted to serve the University. Petitioner was one such. ( 2 ) WHILE transferring the staff, the goversment made provisions for their service conditions which did not give any particular advantage to the transferred employees. There appears to be a series of orders passed in respect of service conditions for the transferred employees finally resulting in the order bearing No. AF 209 AUM 71 dated 29-30/1/1976. ( 3 ) PETITIONER was permitted to retire at the ate of 53 years earlier than the age of super annuation prescribed for Government servants and has drawn his pension from the Government on that basis However, he continued in the services of the University until he attained the age of 60 years when he was superannuated by the University. For the period he served the university after the first retirement, he was entitled to the benefits offerrcd by the university by way of Provident Fund scheme. Petitioner in this case completed 30 years of qualifying service even when be was less than 53 years old and in that position he availed of his right under the karnataka Civil Services Rules to voluntarily retire from the service of the Government. He exercised that right and was permitted to retire voluntarily from 1. 11. 1966, but thereafter continued in the services of the University. In the meanwhile, he was appointed as an Assistant professor under the statutes of the University. In any event, his service from the date of his voluntary retirement was continuous in the University till he attained the age of 60 years and retired on 13. 2. 1974. 11. 1966, but thereafter continued in the services of the University. In the meanwhile, he was appointed as an Assistant professor under the statutes of the University. In any event, his service from the date of his voluntary retirement was continuous in the University till he attained the age of 60 years and retired on 13. 2. 1974. On his voluntary retirement, he was entitled to pension which he drew from the government of Karnataka. That pension came to be revised by the order of 1976, but was not extended to the petitioner. He continued to draw the pension on the basis of the pay last drawn by him before he was permitted to voluntarily retire. Thereafter, he made contributions in accordance with the provisions made in that behalf to the Provident Fund of the university. On finally retiring in 1974, he has drawn that Provident Fund. ( 4 ) IN 1982, by notification dated 10. 2 1982 the University of Agricultural sciences introduced with effect from 1. 7 1981 a pension scheme to be paid out of the University funds to the transferred employees by amending the statute of the university. Statute 63 therein provided that employees transferred under Section 7 of the UAS Act will get the pensionary benefits on the basis of the pay drawn at the age of 55, which is the age of superannuation for purposes of pension from the government funds in accordance with the government order dated 29. 30/1-1976 and of 6. 2 1981 and leave carry over benefits after the age of 55 years, subject however to the deduction to be made of the pension drawn from the University funds being admissible. Therefore, the employees were given the option in the same statute to opt for the pension scheme or for the contributory provident fund scheme for the period of service between their age of 55 and 60. Petitioner has since then been representing to the University authorities and the Government to pay to him the pension under the 1982 scheme introduced with effect from 1981 as he is a transferred employee. Not having met with success with the representations, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the constitution inter-alia contending that the letter of the Under Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry department, addressed to the Registrar of the University of Agricultural Sciences, dated 21. 4. Not having met with success with the representations, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the constitution inter-alia contending that the letter of the Under Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry department, addressed to the Registrar of the University of Agricultural Sciences, dated 21. 4. 1984 should be quashed as the same has denied to him the pension benefits of 1982. He has also prayed for quashing the notification of 1982 issued by the Registrar of the University of Agricultural Sciences amending the statutes of the UAS Act providing for pension schemes, in so far as it relates to its coming into force with effect from 1. 7. 1981 retrospectively to the limited extent indicated. This prayer is not specific, but it has been submitted by the petitioner, who is in person, at the time of conclusion of his arguments. Therefore, the prayer is limited to the quashing of the aggreived provisions in statute 62 of the UAS Act and the same may be substituted by inserting to the effect that "it shall come into effect on the date the transfer took place under the provisions of the UAS act". Lastly, he has also prayed for quashing of the letter addressed to him by the Controller of University of Agricultural Sciences bearing the date 16 7 1982, by which he has been told that he is not eligible for pension under 1982 scheme. Respondent 2 is the University of agricultural Sciences and has entered appearance through Counsel The Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner sought voluntary retirement and obtained the same and therefore question of his being eligible for pension in accordance with the original order of the Government after sttaining the age of 55 years did not arise. Infact, attention of the Court has been drawn to the specific reference made by the Government to the case of one Ravivarma hegde who also sought such voluntary retirement and later while he was still in the services of the University sought for a change of date of retirement subsequent to the actual date for gaining certain benefits, which was denied by the government. The Counsel has therefore contended that the petitioner havingretired before he attained the age of 55, he can at best be entitled to only that pension which he would have been entitled to draw in the Government service had he continued there. The Counsel has therefore contended that the petitioner havingretired before he attained the age of 55, he can at best be entitled to only that pension which he would have been entitled to draw in the Government service had he continued there. This further suppons the stand taken by the Comptroller of the University of Agricultural Sciences in Annexure-S to the petition by stating that the pension benefits of 1982 is prospective in its application and affects employees who are there on 1. 7. 1981 and also others, in any event, not available to the petitioner who drew his Provident Fund benefits as an employee of the University on his retirement from service in 1974. He however made a concession that in so far as the revised pensionary benefits available to the transferred employees from the Government funds provided in the 1076 and 1981 orders entirely relatable to revision of pay scales would be available to the petitioner if he makes a demand for the fame. ( 5 ) AS against this, the petitioner contended that the fixation of 1. 7. 1981 as the cut-off date for coming into force of the benefit scheme of 1982 is arbitrary and unrelated to any specific objective sought to be achieved and therefore is discriminative of the employees who retired before 1. 7. 1981. ( 6 ) THE argument, no doubt appeals and is attractive if one has to look at the advantages one derives by the pension scheme. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is useful to set out statute 63 of the Act to be found in Annexure-R which is as under :-"employees transferred under Section 7 of the UAS Act, 1963 get the pensionary benefits on the basis of pay drawn at the age of 55, which is the age of superannuation for purpose of pension from Government funds according to government Order No. AF 209 AUM 71 dated 29/30th January 1976 and government Order No. AAH 33 AUM 80 dated 6th February 1981. For the services rendered below on the age of 55 and 60, the University will pay pension and gratuity based on the pay drawn at the age of 60 less the pension admissible according to Government order No. AF 209 AUM 71 dated 29/ 30th January 1976 and Government order No AAH 33 AUM 80 dated 6th february 1981 and leave carry over benefits after the age of 55. The employees may be allowed to opt for the pension scheme or the Contributory provident Fund Scheme between the age of 55 and 60". ( 7 ) THE language of the statute as to reference to 'transferred employees' but occurring as it does after statute 62, the transferred employees should have reference, as contended by Mr. Shetty learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, to government employees who continued to be in service on or before 1. 7 1981. He further supports that argument by contending that the new scheme provides both for contributory provident fund scheme as well as pension, to which the employees in question may opt to one of those but never to both. Petitioner having retired in 1974 and having drawn his contributory provident fund amount available to his credit, cannot now claim the benefit of the contributory provident fund and also pension in addition to the pension given to him under the Government funds. In any event, Mr. Shetty contended that the language or statute 63 of the UAS act is clear that it refers to persons who retire at the age of 55 years and 60 years and not to persons who had retired at any other age. The thrust of the argument is that the petitioner having retired at the age of 52 + cannot invoke the benefit of statute 63 of the UAS Act. ( 8 ) A careful analysis of the language used does support the contention of the counsel for the University. It was for this reason that the Government in ravivarma Hegde's case has clearly pointed out to the University that the date of retirement could not be altered to the advantage of the persons concerned merely because he asked for it. Date of retirement being an actual fact, it could not by agreement be altered. It was for this reason that the Government in ravivarma Hegde's case has clearly pointed out to the University that the date of retirement could not be altered to the advantage of the persons concerned merely because he asked for it. Date of retirement being an actual fact, it could not by agreement be altered. Petitioner v/ho sought for a change has been rejected by the Government despite the recommendation of the University in the light of the view it had taken in Ravivarma hegde's case. Therefore, the retirement age of the petitioner for purposes of Government funds pension should necessarily remain at 52 + and not 55. If he did not attain the age of superannuation of 55, question of his pressing into service, the benefit of statute 63 of the UAS Act would not arise apart from not being an employee on or after 1. 7. 1981. ( 9 ) PETITIONER has countered his argument by relying upon the decision in nakara's Case ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ). In that case, the Supreme Court had occasion to observe that the Government cannot arbitrarily dig away and give additional benefit to pensioners from the date so arbitrarily fixed and deny the same to the person who retirel before that arbitrary date so fixed. The compelling factor to come to that conclusion was that both group of pensioners i. e. , before and after the arbitrary date were governed by the same Rules of pension. That would not be of much assistance to the petitioner here because, he is not governed by any rules of pension other than that which entitled him to the pension from the government fund in terms of the various government orders since the transfer of the employees from the Government in accordance with the provisions contained in statute 32 of the UAS Act. The pension Rules available to him will be the pension Rules available in the Karnataka civil Services Rules. He can. ot claim to be governed by the pension Rules now made by the statutes of the University. ( 10 ) THE cut-off date fixed for the coming into force of the statute providing for the pension scheme could not be explained by the learned Counsel for respondent-2 with reference to any specific event or purpose. He can. ot claim to be governed by the pension Rules now made by the statutes of the University. ( 10 ) THE cut-off date fixed for the coming into force of the statute providing for the pension scheme could not be explained by the learned Counsel for respondent-2 with reference to any specific event or purpose. But what appears to be obvious is that the revision of pension benefits under the government funds was made in February, 1982 finally conferring additional benefits which were not available to the transferred employees before the date except what was given in the 1976 order That perhaps is the one of the reasons, while the pension scheme was introduced, it was proposed to be introduced from July 1981 as till then there was no contemplation for payment of pension besides the contributory provident fund scheme, which already existed from the inception of the University. When there is a fresh introduction of a scheme, a date has to be fixed for partial retrospective operation having regard to many factors. Viewed in that way, it is clear that it is not intended to cover all transferred employees who already had enjoyed the benefit of drawing out the contributory provident fund at their credit when they retired. Therefore, it cannot be said that the retrospective introduction of statute 62 of the UAS Act is arbitrary or unreasonable. In any event, not at the instance of the petitioner who retired in 1974. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons I have given, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Anything said in the course of this order should not disentitle the petitioner to get si ch additional benefits on his application envisaged under the 1976 and 1981 orders of the Government. --- *** --- .