JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Much, as one may want to take an equitable view in favour of the petitioners, however, in the absence of any legal sanction, the reliefs, as claimed for, cannot be granted. 2. Petition stands filed, praying for the following reliefs: 1. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondent-University to grant portability of pension to the petitioners by counting their past service rendered by them in previous institutions where they were covered under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with further directions to the respondent University to grant the benefit of pension to the petitioners as provided in CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 2. That further a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondent-University for transferring the provident fund account of the petitioners alongwith terminal benefits by further directing the respondent University to start deducting provident fund in the present establishment in the interest of law and justice. 3. Petitioners were employed, in different capacities, including Professors, with various Universities/ organizations/departments, is not in dispute. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-University, for appointment to various posts, petitioners applied and, on the basis of merit and selection, were appointed. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were governed under the various schemes of pension with their parent organizations. 4. Significantly, letters of appointment of the petitioners reveal that their lien with the parent-department(s) continued only for a period of two years. Undisputedly, during the period of such lien, petitioners have chosen not to return to their respective parent department(s)/organization(s) and continued to discharge their duties and functions, in terms of their letters of appointment. 5. The respondent-University stands established under the provisions of The Central Universities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant provision of the Act, invoked by the petitioners, reads as under: “Section 6. ………. (2) exercising its powers referred to in subsection (1), it shall be the Endeavour of the University to maintain all all-India character and high standards of teaching and research, and the University shall, among other measurers which may be necessary for the said purpose, take, in particular, the following measurers, namely:- (i) ……. (ii) ……. (iii) Inter-University mobility of faculty, with portable pensions and protection of seniority, shall be encouraged;” 6. (ii) ……. (iii) Inter-University mobility of faculty, with portable pensions and protection of seniority, shall be encouraged;” 6. By virtue of Section 27 of the Act, the University can frame, amend or repeal statutes. However, this can only be when the assent of the Visitor, which, in the instant case is, His Excellency the President of India, is duly accorded and received. 7. In the instant case, the respondent-University has issued certain ordinances, also pertaining to the service which is to be counted for the purpose of pension, but however, it is a matter of record that the statute, with regard to the scheme of pension, on portability basis, has not been approved by the Visitor. University, as such, would be governed under the new scheme of pension. 8. No doubt, in the parent department(s), the petitioners were governed by the respective schemes of pension, including the one framed under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), but however, in the instant case, since the University itself came into existence on 20.1.2010, with the enactment of the Act, the old pension scheme, so framed, under various Rules cannot be made automatically applicable to the petitioners, who, voluntarily and knowing well the terms and conditions of their appointment, joined on various posts. 9. Doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked in the present case. With open eyes, petitioners joined the University. Their selection was on unequivocal terms, as it stood explained to them, in their letters of appointment, that they would be governed by the New Pension Scheme of the Government of India. Petitioners having openly accepted such condition and having readily agreed to be governed by the New Pension Scheme, voluntarily joined the respondent. 10. It be observed that the respondent-University is one amongst the fifteen, so established under the Act, and the scheme of portability of pension has also not been made applicable to these institutions. 11. In the instant case, respondent-University does not have any old pension scheme and is governed by the New Pension Scheme. As such, in the absence of any provision for continuing with the pension scheme of the parent organization(s), the question of portability does not arise. 12. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that the petitioners have any legally enforceable right, which stands defeated by the respondent-University. As such, in the absence of any provision for continuing with the pension scheme of the parent organization(s), the question of portability does not arise. 12. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that the petitioners have any legally enforceable right, which stands defeated by the respondent-University. Petitioners’ claim of grant of portability pension, being unsustainable in law, cannot be allowed and is, therefore, rejected. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.