Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 675 (JHR)

S. K. M. University v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-14

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These two Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the Appellant-University being aggrieved against the order dated 27.06.2009 passed by a Single Bench of this Court holding that the widows of the two employees, who preferred W.P.(S) No. 4452/2007 and W.P.(S) No. 4453 of 2007, are entitled to family pension in the light of the offer given to them vide Memo No. SKU/ACC/203-206/98 dated 30.07.1998 and directed the Respondent-university to compute the benefits accrued to the writ Petitioners, widows of the employees, as per option given by them after deducting the employees contribution towards the provident fund and / or adjustment as provided in Clause(5) of the 1998 scheme. 3. The writ petitions were allowed with the cost of Rs. 10,000/-and hence these Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the Appellant University. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in the year 1982 there were three schemes i.e. (a) General Provident Fundcum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme, (b) Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme (c) Contributory Provident Fund. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant-University the husband of one of the writ Petitioners (cases of both writ Petitioners are same) gave his option on 27.01.1983 to opt scheme for Contributory Provident Fund and the husband of the said writ Petitioner died on 21.10.1995. The widow of the said writ Petitioner was paid the contributory provident fund amount as well as other retiral benefits. On 30.07.1998 the then Vice-Chancellor issued an order and invited options under the grant of interim benefit statute and the writ Petitioners submitted their option for pension but according to the learned Counsel for the Appellant that scheme was not finalised and in the year 2001, a circular was issued by the State Government whereby it has been decided that employees only who were in service up to 01.01.1996 shall be entitled to the benefit under the scheme of 1998. Since both the Petitioners' husband died before 1996, therefore, though initially their names were recommended for family pension but thereafter, a cross-mark was indicated against their names and, therefore, they were not paid the family pension. 5. Since both the Petitioners' husband died before 1996, therefore, though initially their names were recommended for family pension but thereafter, a cross-mark was indicated against their names and, therefore, they were not paid the family pension. 5. So far as contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Vice-Chancellor though issued order on 30.07.1998 and invited option from the employees who joined the service after 1st April, 1978 but that decision of the Vice-Chancellor did not take final shape, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that according to the Appellant itself such benefit is given to the employees who were in service up to 01.01.1996 as so has been pleaded in para-7 of the reply and which has been quoted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Therefore, the Vice-Chancellor had power to issue such order Under Section 36 of the Bihar State University Act and Statute framed thereunder. 6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that this benefit was available to the persons, who were in service as on 01.01.1996, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the Government scheme itself came in the year 2001 and before which the option was duly exercised by the widows of these employees and admittedly the employees were in service as on 01.01.1996 and, therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge which has been passed after considering the relevant facts and legal position also. 7. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that award of cost of Rs. 10,000/-cannot be justified, therefore, award of the cost is set aside. If the Appellant University has not computed the benefit and has not paid the same to the Respondents, the same be paid forthwith without any further delay. 8. Both the Letters Patent Appeals have no merit which are accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.