Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 211 (MP)

R. D. Tiwari v. Jiwaji University Gwalior

2017-02-09

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2017
ORDER 1. Petitioners' case is that they were initially appointed on probation on the post of UDC/ LDC with effect from 1.1.1970 and 15.11.1969 respectively under respondent No.1. They earned their promotions from time-to-time and superannuated on 31.7.2003 and 30.6.2003 respectively. It is their submission that the period of probation has not been counted for the period of qualifying services for grant of pension. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn specific attention of this Court to Annexure P-4 which is a communication addressed to respondent No.3, whereby the CPF contribution for the period of probation along with interest has been sent to respondent No.3, so that qualifying services of the petitioners may be calculated taking the period of probation into account. 3. The return filed by respondents No.2 and 3 is silent on this communication (Annnexure P-4) and in a rote manner, it is mentioned in the return, in Para-3 of the preliminary objections, that since CPF deduction was not made and there was no rule as well as the pension scheme was introduced afterwords, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for counting of their period of probation for the purpose of qualifying services. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions contained in rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which provides that- service on probation against a post shall qualify for the purpose of grant of pension. 5. Apart from that, the fact of the matter is that the Pension Rules have come into force in 1976 with effect from 1.6.1976 and defines the qualifying service under rule 3(1)(P). It has been defined as- the period between the date of joining pensionable service under the State Government and retirement therefrom which shall be taken into account for purpose of pension and gratuity admissible under these rules and includes the period which qualifies under any other order or rule for the time being in force. 6. It has been defined as- the period between the date of joining pensionable service under the State Government and retirement therefrom which shall be taken into account for purpose of pension and gratuity admissible under these rules and includes the period which qualifies under any other order or rule for the time being in force. 6. In this regard, it is apparent that petitioners were appointed substantively to the post of UDC/ LDC and the scheme of CPF was later on converted into a scheme of pensionable services inasmuch as there is no dispute about the fact that the service conditions of the petitioners were governed by the service conditions as framed by the State Government from time-to-time though they were the employees of the University and therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in rule 14, which provides that once the CPF contribution has been rendered by the Jiwaji University in favour of the respondent No.3, then the petitioners are entitled to count their service on probation as qualifying services; that is the spirit of the provisions contained in rule 12(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. 7. If there is any dispute about the CPF contribution and the interest as deposited by respondent No.1, the respondent No.3 is always free to seek the difference of amount, but that cannot be a ground to arbitrarily deny computation of the qualifying services of the period rendered by the petitioners on probation after their appointment to a substantive post of UDC/ LDC, therefore, the petition is allowed. 8. It is directed that the respondents shall compute the period of probation for qualifying service and it is liable to be computed for the purpose of computing the qualifying service. However, liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.3 that if they have any dispute regarding quantum of contribution and interest, then they will be free to either ask the petitioners to deposit directly or respondent No.1 to comply with the same. 9. With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed.