Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 607 (RAJ)

Dr. Shayam Chandra Sharma v. The JNV University

2003-04-23

O.P.BISHNOI, RAJESH BALIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Government College of Rajasthan and entered the service of the State of Rajasthan on 13.8.1953. On formation of JNV University (formerly called as Jodhpur University) on 19.9.62, the services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of the University, however, his lien continued with the State of Rajasthan until there was permanently absorption in the University. By the time he was permanently absorbed in the University on 13.7.63, his services with the Government were for 9 years and 11 months. The petitioner finally superannuated from the services of University on 30.11.87 As Associate Professor in the Department of Zoology. 2. At the time of retirement there was no pension scheme for the servants of the University and accordingly, the petitioner was not entitled to any pensionary benefits at that time from the University. A committee constituted by University Grants Commission known as Malhotra Committee made its recommendations in 1986, which included recommendations in relation to the pension scheme also. Considering the said report, the University made the Regulations called as JNV University Pension Regulations, 1991 to be effective from 1.1.90. The pension scheme was not made applicable prior to 1.1.1990. 3. The petitioner's claim in this petition is that cut-off date fixed for denying the pensionary benefits to persons retired prior to 1990 is ultra vires and, Is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He has also raised the issue that at least the pension scheme should have been made applicable w.e.f. 1.1.86, the date when recommendation for making pension scheme for University was made by Malhotra Committee and that he is entitled to claim pension under the Regulations for the services rendered to JNV University. He has also prayed for grant of proportionate pension, even it his first prayer is not accepted, for the period during which he has served the State Government, prior to his absorption in the University Services. The prayers made by the petitioner in the writ petition are as under : 1. "The Regulation 1(ii) of the Pension Regulations 1990 of the respondent University whereby the pension regulations have been made effective w.e.f. 1.1.90 may kindly be declared arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and be struck down. 2. The prayers made by the petitioner in the writ petition are as under : 1. "The Regulation 1(ii) of the Pension Regulations 1990 of the respondent University whereby the pension regulations have been made effective w.e.f. 1.1.90 may kindly be declared arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and be struck down. 2. It may be declared that the pension scheme shall be applicable to all the employees of the respondent University who have retired before or after 1.1.90. 3. In the alternative it is prayed that if this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the aforesaid relief (2) cannot be granted to the petitioner then it may kindly be declared that the pension scheme shall be treated as applicable to all employees who have retired on or after 1.1.1986. 4. It may be declared that the petitioner is entitled to avail the pensionary benefit under the Pension Regulations, 1990. 5. It may be declared that the petitioner is also entitled to proportionate pension benefits from the State of Rajasthan (Non petitioner No. 2) as have been allowed to other employees who were earlier in the service of the State of Rajasthan and were later on absorbed in other autonomous bodies or departments." 4. The petitioner has claimed the benefits of pension for the entire period of service under the Regulations of 1990, founded on the contentions raised in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 115 of 1993, Amritlal Gandhi and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another . The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 30.8.94 along with some other petitions also, holding that the pension scheme ought to have been made applicable from 1.1.86 instead of 1.1.90. However, the said judgment of this Court was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Another v. Amrit Lal Gandhi and Others, 1997 (2) SCC 342 . The Supreme Court has held that there was no justification for substituting the date of 1.1.1986 in lieu of 1.1.90. It opined that, "It, is evident that for introducing a pension scheme, which envisaged financial implications, approval of the Rajasthan Government was required. It cannot be said that the paying capacity is not a relevant or valid consideration while fixing the cut-off date. The University could in 1991, validly frame Pension Regulations to be made applicable prospectively. It opined that, "It, is evident that for introducing a pension scheme, which envisaged financial implications, approval of the Rajasthan Government was required. It cannot be said that the paying capacity is not a relevant or valid consideration while fixing the cut-off date. The University could in 1991, validly frame Pension Regulations to be made applicable prospectively. It, however, chose to give them limited retrospectivity so as to cover a large number of employees by taking into the financial impact of giving retrospective operation to the Pension Regulations. It was decided that employees retiring on or after 1.1.90 would be able to exercise the option of getting either pension or provident fund. Financial impact of making the Regulations retrospective can be the sole consideration while fixing a cut-off date. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said cut-off date was fixed arbitrarily or without any reason." 5. In view of the aforesaid clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court holding the cut-off date was a valid exercise of discretion by Rule Making Authority, in respect of the very same Rules the prayer Nos. 1 to 4 cannot be granted to the petitioner. 6. So far as the relief No. 5 is concerned a decision of this Court supports the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to proportionate pensionary benefits from the State of Rajasthan for the period during which he was employee of the State of Rajasthan until he was permanently absorbed in the University. In this connection, we may notice a decision by this Court in the case of Pukhraj Singhvi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3946/1994, decided on 13.10.2000 . In terms of the aforesaid judgment, prayer No. 5 is required to be granted to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The respondent No. 2 Is directed to determine the amount of proportionate pension payable to the petitioner for the period prior to permanent absorption of the petitioner in the University service and to make payment in respect thereof to him within three months. The arrears of pension shall be paid to the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date he retired. 8. The arrears of pension shall be paid to the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date he retired. 8. Prayer for grant of pension under Regulation 1990 by declaring t cut-off date to be invalid is refused.There will be no orders as to costs.Writ Petition allowed in part - State directed to consider petitioner's claim for pension and pay same within three months. *******