JUDGMENT : The grievances of the petitioners herein, who are employees and retired personnel of the 3rd respondent-Cost Cultivating Centre, appointed on the basis of the Scheme in that regard sponsored by the 1st respondent-Government of India and implemented through the 2nd respondent-University of Kerala, are regarding the denial of payment of pensionary benefits as there is no clarity as to whether the financial burden for meeting with the pensionary liability is to be borne directly by the 1st respondent-Central Government or by the 2nd respondent- University of Kerala. So, the main dispute raised in this writ proceedings is as to whether the financial burden is upon the 1st respondent-Central Government authorities or with the 2nd respondent- University of Kerala in the matter of bearing the expenses for the pensionary claims of the above said employees and retired employees. The prayers raised in this Writ Petition (Civil) filed on 7.4.2014 are as follows: “i. To declare the refusal to sanction regular pension at par with the employees of either the 1st respondent or 2nd respondent is violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the constitution. ii. To call for the records leading upto Exhibit P26 and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. iii. To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to declare the eligibility of the petitioners for regular monthly pension and grant the same as if they were the employees of either the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent from the date of their retirement from the service and disburse the same forthwith with arrears and interest thereon. iv. To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The 1st respondent-Government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture had sponsored a comprehensive scheme for the cost of various crops in various States in India, which is known as the “Cost of Cultivation Scheme” (CCS), whereby some of the Universities functioning within the respective States have been chosen by the Central Government as the agency to implement the said Scheme. Ext.P-3 communication dated 20.6.1970 issued by the 1st respondent- Government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture is one such communication which deals with the above said aspects relating to the said Scheme in the 2nd respondent-University of Kerala. The grant-in-aid was offered by the 1st respondent-Central Government to the Universities like the 2nd respondent and the personnel appointed by the 2nd respondent-University for implementation of the Scheme and the grant-in-aid was to be utilised for meeting with the expenditure relating to appointment of personnel by the University in accordance with the staffing pattern approved by the Scheme, etc. By Ext.P-4 letter dated 6.11.1989 the competent authority of the respondent-State Government had advised the 2nd respondent-University to treat such staff members engaged in the work of Cost of Cultivation Scheme being implemented by that University as regular staff members of Kerala University and extend all the service benefits to the staff members of the Scheme as are being enjoyed by the other University staff members. By Ext.P-5 University order dated 7.3.1995, the competent authority of the 2nd respondent-Kerala University has decided that all service benefits enjoyed by the regular staff members of the Kerala University could be extended to the employees in the said Scheme, but without any financial commitment on the part of the University. The stand of the 2nd respondent-University is that the entire financial burden for meeting with the salary and service benefits payable to such employees like the petitioners, who are appointed under the CC Scheme was to be met by way of grant-in-aid to be provided by the Central Government. As there was dispute as to whether the financial burden for meeting with the pensionary benefits was to be borne by the 1st respondent- Central Government or by the 2nd respondent-University, it resulted in a stalemate whereby none of the staff and personnel, who are appointed under the CC Scheme in the 2nd respondent-University on the basis of the Scheme sponsored by the 1st respondent, could not be paid the pensionary benefits. This resulted in some of the employees including some of the petitioners herein, in agitating the issue before this Court through a Writ Petition, which was filed as O.P.No.25227/1998. This resulted in some of the employees including some of the petitioners herein, in agitating the issue before this Court through a Writ Petition, which was filed as O.P.No.25227/1998. This Court as per Ext.P-8 judgment dated 24.3.1999 had finally disposed of O.P.No.25227/1998 after taking note of the above said proceedings of the 1st respondent-Central Government and the 2nd respondent- University by holding that the 2nd respondent-Kerala University has to send proper budget proposal to the authorities of the Central Government after issuing orders treating the staff recruited for the Scheme as regular members of the University at par with the other staff members of the University. Accordingly, this Court had passed Ext.P-8 judgment, whereby the 2nd respondent-University was directed to send proposal for payment of pension to all the petitioners therein to the Central Government within 6 months and expedite action for disbursement of Provident Fund amount to the petitioners. 3. Later, the 2nd respondent-University had filed an application for clarification of Ext.P-8 judgment, which resulted in Ext.P-9 order passed by this Court on 1.2.2001 on C.M.P.No.34260/2000 in O.P.No.25227/1998. This Court noted the stand of the 2nd respondent-University as reflected in their University Order as per Ext.P-5 herein that the decision of the University is to extend all service benefits enjoyed by the regular staff of the University to the staff of the Scheme without any financial commitment on the part of the University. This Court had also noted that an amount of Rs.18.19 lakhs for the period 1996-97 and an amount of Rs.30 lakhs were remitted in the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme and that such amounts could be utilised for the purpose and the University could pay pension and PF from the amount outstanding in the account of the employees, who have already retired and that the University could pay pensionary benefits of the retired employees from the said fund. However, it was specifically directed in Ext.P-9 by this Court that the future pension and other benefits shall be provided by the 1st respondent-Union of India and the Union of India was specifically directed to provide sufficient funds as worked out by the University within 6 months from the date of retirement of each employee. Being aggrieved by Ext.P-8 judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.P.No.25227/1998, the Union of India had filed W.A.No.1291/2004 before a Division Bench of this Court. Being aggrieved by Ext.P-8 judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.P.No.25227/1998, the Union of India had filed W.A.No.1291/2004 before a Division Bench of this Court. It appears that during the pendency of the said W.A.No.1291/2004, the 2nd respondent-University had issued proceedings on the basis of the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 23.12.2004 forwarding a scheme of study of Cost of Cultivation Scheme in agriculture in Kerala University for pensionary benefits payable to such staff. A copy of the said Scheme framed in pursuance of the decision taken by the University on 23.12.2004 was produced as Ext.R-1(d) in the said Writ Appeal and it reads as follows: “1. The amount available with the Regional Provident Commissioner in the Account No.KR 9052 as Employer's Contribution may be transferred to KUF and utilized as the pension contribution of past years. 2. The Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, shall provide finance every year for monthly pension payment. 3. In the event of stopping the Cost of Cultivation Scheme by the Ministry of Agriculture in future, the University will not take any financial liability to pay the future monthly pensions. 4. In such cases the University will terminate the monthly pension scheme from the date on which the Scheme is stopped. 5. The staff of the Cost of Cultivation Scheme may be given an option for continuing the existing contributory pension scheme or monthly pension scheme subject to the condition that the monthly pension scheme will be stopped if the Ministry of Agriculture may stop the scheme or withdraw financial support to the Scheme. 6. The age of retirement of staff will be 55 years." (emphasis supplied) 4. The Division Bench of this Court had disposed of the said W.A.No.1291/2004 filed by the Union of India as per judgment dated 2.12.2005 taking note of the above said subsequent Scheme framed by the University of Kerala produced as Ext.R-1(d) in the Writ Appeal and also taking note of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the University that necessary follow up action had already been taken by them as per Ext.R-1(d). Therefore the Division Bench held that it is unnecessary to go into the contentions raised by the Union of India and the question whether there is any burden at all on the Union of India by the introduction of the pension scheme was thus left open. Therefore the Division Bench held that it is unnecessary to go into the contentions raised by the Union of India and the question whether there is any burden at all on the Union of India by the introduction of the pension scheme was thus left open. By a subsequent clarificatory order passed as per Ext.P-13 dated 11.6.2010 rendered by the Division Bench in I.A., in the said disposed of W.A.No.1291/2004, this Court had held that the question as to whether the financial burden is with the 1st respondent-Union of India was left open. A series of subsequent communications and proceedings of the 1st respondent-Central Government and the 2nd respondent-University have been produced in this writ proceedings. 5. The sum and substance of the respective stand of the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent that borne out from the proceedings is that according to the 1st respondent it is not their financial burden to meet with the pensionary liability of the employees of the CC Scheme but that of the University as those employees were treated as regular staff members of the University. Whereas the contra stand of the University is to the effect that the Scheme is one, which is sponsored by the Central Government and meant only for the benefit of Governmental agencies and the 2nd respondent-University has only agreed it to be an implementing agency in deference to the stand of the 1st respondent-Central Government that they had chosen the University to be the implementing agency for that Scheme. But that, till date the entire liabilities/service benefits have been paid to those staff members of the CC Scheme therein only out of grant-in-aid provided by the Central Government and not from the limited funds of the University and that as revealed from University orders produced as Ext.P-5, etc., University in deference to the request of the Central Government had only decided to extend all service benefits to the members of the CC Scheme by treating them at par with the regular staff members but without any financial commitment on the part of the University and therefore the entire liability on account of salary and other benefits and even that in respect of pensionary liability is to be borne by the Central Government by way of grant-in-aid and not by the University. The 2nd respondent-University and the 1st respondent-Central Government have filed their separate counter affidavits in this matter wherein they have reiterated their respective contentions, as aforestated. 6. Similar disputes were raised in the Scheme, which was implemented by the 1st respondent-Central Government through various such Universities in some of the States concerned, which have also come up in litigative proceedings. Therein also, the main issue was as to whether the financial burden and liability to meet such pensionary claims of the employees of the Scheme were to be met by the Central Government or by the State University concerned. The interesting aspect of this dispute, which is actually inter se between the 1st respondent-Government of India and the 2nd respondent-University is that it is common ground of all the parties concerned that the employees like the petitioners herein, who are working in the CC Scheme are indeed entitled for pensionary benefits. The limited question is, who should bear the financial burden of the same. 7. Heard Sri. S.M. Prasanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. N. Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent-Union of India and Sri. Thomas Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University, appearing for respondents 2 & 3. The respective Advocates have reiterated the stand of their respective parties as reflected in the above said pleadings. 8. At the outset, similar disputes as between the Central Government and various other Universities, who have implemented the CC Scheme, have come up for consideration in various writ litigative proceedings. Ext.P-1 is a copy of the judgment dated 4.9.2013 rendered by the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C).No.5384/2008. The Gauhati High Court as per the said Ext.P-1 judgment had inter alia issued directions as per para 26 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “26. In such circumstances, having broadly noticed the features of the grievance raised in the present proceeding and the sympathetic view of the Central Government authorities, Court is of the view that the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India should constitute a committee, which should include a representative of the University and such other members as the Agriculture Ministry may decide, to examine the claim of the petitioners for payment of pension. Let the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture notify constitution of such a committee within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. To facilitate the deliberation before the committee, the University may submit a detailed proposal before the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India indicating therein the financial involvement in the event of grant of pension to the employees under the Scheme, including the petitioners.” 9. The Allahabad High Court has also considered the said issue in Writ Application No.24354/2007 on which judgment has been rendered on 24.7.2012. A copy of the said judgment has been produced as Ext.P-2 herein. It has been directed by the Allahabad High Court as per the penultimate and final paragraph thereof as follows: “Admittedly, the petitioner is entitled to pension in terms of Employees Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. The other benefits like gratuity and commutation of earned leave are denied to him. He further states that pension payable to the petitioner i.e. Rs. 292/- is too meager. This is an issue which does require consideration. The petitioner can not be denied benefit of post retirement payable to the employee of Government of India. Petitioner's status as an employee of the Government of India is not being denied but the post retirement benefits which is given to the petitioner is in accordance with Employees Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. In the circumstances, respondent no.1 is directed to consider the issue of giving gratuity, pension and commutation of earned leave on the basis of pay last drawn by him. Respondent no.1 being the model employer can not deny this right to the petitioner as he was an employee under the Scheme which is sponsored by Union of India. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.1 to consider and pass appropriate orders for post retirement benefits like gratuity, pension and commutation of earned leave on basis of last pay drawn in accordance with law. The decision in this regard be taken by the Secretary, Ministry of Agricultural, New Delhi, or any other officer authorized in this behalf. Let this process be completed within a period of 4 months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondents.” 10. The decision in this regard be taken by the Secretary, Ministry of Agricultural, New Delhi, or any other officer authorized in this behalf. Let this process be completed within a period of 4 months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondents.” 10. The above dispute has also been considered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.25157/2007, reported in 2014 (1) LLN 441 Guj.. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has rendered Ext.P-27 judgment on 17.1.2014 in the said writ proceedings. It will be profitable to refer the concluding 4 paragraphs of Ext.P-27 as contained in paras 16-19 thereof, which read as follows: “16. In the present case also, the letter dated 1st May 1961 addressed by the Union of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, to the Vice Chancellor of the Sardar Vallabhbhai University, makes it clear that all recurring expenses of the Centre would be met by the Government of India as approved. Accordingly, a budgetary provision of Rs.40,000/- was made for the financial year 1961-62. The Union also clarified that the proposed Centre could not be set up without the active assistance of the Vidhyapith and although the Government of India would bear the total recurring and some of the non-recurring costs, the non-recurring expenditure such as provision of building etc. would have to be borne by the Vidhyapith. 17. It appears to us that the issue as regards payment of pension to the members of the association could not be resolved as the Union of India is trying to throw the entire burden on the shoulders of the University and the University's stance is that it does not have the funds to provide for pension to the retired employees of the Centre. In our opinion, the confrontation between the Union of India and the University should not come in the way of the employees so far as grant of pension is concerned. This issue ought to have been resolved amicably long back but unfortunately neither of the two thought fit to take the initiative and ultimately the matter had to be adjudicated by the Court. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that there is merit in this petition and the same deserves to be allowed. 19. The petition is allowed. This issue ought to have been resolved amicably long back but unfortunately neither of the two thought fit to take the initiative and ultimately the matter had to be adjudicated by the Court. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that there is merit in this petition and the same deserves to be allowed. 19. The petition is allowed. It is declared that the members of the petitioner association are entitled to all the pensionary benefits as available to the employees of the Sardar Patel University. The respondent no.3-Union of India is directed to provide the necessary financial resources by making necessary budgetary allocation for ensuring that the respondent no.1, Sardar Patel University, gets the finances for the payment of pensionary benefits to the members of the association. The respondent no.1 University is directed to release the pensionary benefits, including the arrears accumulated so far, within a period of three months from today. The respondent no.3, Union of India, is directed to ensure that within the present financial year the necessary financial resources according to the Business Rules are transferred to the respondent no.1-University so that the pensionary benefits can be granted to the members of the petitioner association.” 11. As rendered in Ext.P-27 judgment of the Gujarat High Court, similar issue was also considered by the Delhi High Court. But the Scheme considered by the Delhi High Court was slightly different and thereafter the Union of India being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Delhi High Court had filed S.L.P before the Apex Court, which was later converted as Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184/2015. The Apex Court had passed a detailed order dated 8.2.2018 in C.A.No.8183- 8184/2015, which pertains to the matter which arose from the Delhi High Court. The said order dated 8.2.2018 in C.A.Nos.8183- 8184/2015 reads as follows: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Government of India established Agro Economic Research Centres (AERC) in the year 1954 under the Ministry of Agriculture. Fifteen centres were set up in different States and attached to different Universities. Their object was to conduct investigation into specified agro economic problems and other related issues. The centres were supplementing the functioning of the Ministry of Agriculture. The Government later approved a proposal to merge the AERCs with the respective universities where they were functioning. In the process, MOUs were entered into between the Central Government and the Universities. Their object was to conduct investigation into specified agro economic problems and other related issues. The centres were supplementing the functioning of the Ministry of Agriculture. The Government later approved a proposal to merge the AERCs with the respective universities where they were functioning. In the process, MOUs were entered into between the Central Government and the Universities. The said MOUs clearly provide that the Ministry will release the grant-in-aid, according to the approved budget. The centres will be integrated with the universities. The staff will be considered at par with the employees of the University for pay and other privileges. Relevant part of MOU in the present case is as follows: “The staff of the centre would be considered at par with regular employees of the university for all the privileges enjoyed by the regular staff of the university i.e. pension, gratuity provident fund allotment of quarters as per the existing rules medical benefits, all other benefits etc. as applicable to the staff of the university. They will also be considered for such advances and loans as may be extended by the university to its staff”. A dispute was raised by some of the employees for enforcement of the above before the Allahabad High Court but the Allahabad High Court rejected their claim. On the other hand, the Delhi High Court has upheld the claim of the respondents based on the above MOU. The operative part of the order of learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court which has been upheld by the Division Bench is as follow: “In view of the above, the writ petitions have to succeed. The impugned order of the respondent no. 4 dated 20.12.2008 is quashed. Petitioners will be entitled to all the pensionary benefits as available to employees of the respondent no.4-University. Respondent No. 1 is directed to give the necessary financial resources by making necessary budgetary allocations for ensuring that the respondent No.4-University gets the finances for payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioners. Respondent no. 4 is directed to release the pensionary benefits including the arrears so far as those petitioners are concerned who already had the pensionary benefits; and such pensionary benefits were withdrawn by the order dated 20.12.2008; within a period of three months from today. Respondent no. 4 is directed to release the pensionary benefits including the arrears so far as those petitioners are concerned who already had the pensionary benefits; and such pensionary benefits were withdrawn by the order dated 20.12.2008; within a period of three months from today. Respondent No. 1 is directed to ensure that within this financial year the necessary financial resources as per business rules are transferred to the respondent no. 4- University so that the pensionary benefits can be granted to the petitioners”. Having perused the MOU and the Scheme of the setting up of the Agro Economic Research Centres, we do not find any error in the view taken by the High Court. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 12. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, that by judgment dated 8.2.2018, their Lordships of the Apex Court have also dismissed C.A.No.8183-8184/2015 filed by the Union of India in terms of the above said order dated 8.2.2018. The said order dated 8.2.2018 rendered by the Apex Court in C.A.No.8183-8184/2015 reads as follows: “The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.” 13. The provision as contained in the relevant part of the MOU which was dealt with by the Delhi High Court is referred to in the bottom portion of para (1) of the above said order dated 8.2.2018. As can be seen from a reading of the penultimate paragraph of the above said order dated 8.2.2018 in C.A.No.8183-8184/2015, the Delhi High Court therein has clearly held that the writ petitioners therein have to succeed and it was declared that the petitioners therein are entitled to all the pensionary benefits as available to employees of R-4 University therein and R-1 Union of India was directed to give necessary financial resources by making necessary budgetary allocations for ensuring that R-4 University gets the finance for payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioners and R-4 was consequentially directed to release the pensionary benefits including the arrears so far as the those petitioners are concerned, who already had the pensionary benefits and such other benefits. The above said judgment of the Delhi High Court has been fully affirmed and confirmed by the Apex Court in the final order dated 8.2.2018 in C.A.Nos.8183-8184/15. 14. The above said judgment of the Delhi High Court has been fully affirmed and confirmed by the Apex Court in the final order dated 8.2.2018 in C.A.Nos.8183-8184/15. 14. The above said matter in Ext.P-27 judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court was also challenged by Union of India by filing Civil Appeal as C.A.No.8196/2015. C.A.No.8195/2015 was also filed by one of the employees, who has been aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Gujarat High Court. C.A.Nos.8195-8196/15 were disposed of as per order dated 20.4.2018 whereby C.A.No.8196/2015 filed by the Union of India was dismissed as there were no merits in the contention of the Union of India. C.A.No.8195/2015 was allowed by the Apex Court in terms of the order earlier rendered by the Apex Court on 8.2.2018 in the aforementioned case in Union of India & ors. v. Radharanjan Pattanaik & ors . in C.A.Nos.8183-8184/15 pertaining to the case that arose from the Delhi High Court. Consequently, it was also separately ordered that C.A.No.8196/15 filed by the Union of India was dismissed and C.A.No.8195/2015 filed by the employee concerned was allowed as aforestated. The order dated 8.2.2018 in C.A.No.8195-8196/15 reads as follows: “In terms of the signed order, C.A.No.8196 of 2015 is dismissed and C.A.No.8195 of 2015 is allowed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed” 15. Therefore, the Apex Court in C.A.No.8195/2015, which arose out of the decision of the Gujarat High Court has also directed that the petitioners therein will be entitled to all the pensionary benefits as available to the employees of the State University therein and the respondent-Union of India was specifically directed to give necessary financial resources by making necessary budgetary allocations for ensuring that the University concerned gets the finance for payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioners and R-4 was directed to release the pensionary benefits in accordance with law. Union of India was specifically directed therein to ensure that within the financial year concerned (which was 2017-18), necessary financial resources, which precedes to the order dated 8.2.2018 and as per Business Rules of the Union of India are transferred to the University so that pensionary benefits could be granted to the employees therein. Union of India was specifically directed therein to ensure that within the financial year concerned (which was 2017-18), necessary financial resources, which precedes to the order dated 8.2.2018 and as per Business Rules of the Union of India are transferred to the University so that pensionary benefits could be granted to the employees therein. Therefore, the matter is no longer res integra and fully covered in favour of the employees like the petitioners and the matter is to be disposed of by issuing necessary directions as already rendered by the Apex Court in the above Civil Appeals. 16. Accordingly, it is declared that the petitioners, who are the employees of the 3rd respondent-Centre are entitled to the pensionary benefits as available to the employees of the regular staff members of the 2nd respondent-University of Kerala. The 1st respondent Union of India is directed to give necessary financial resources by making necessary budgetary allocations for ensuring that R-2 University gets finances for payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioners. R-1 Union of India is directed to ensure that well before the expiry of this financial year, 2018-2019, necessary financial resources as per the Business Rules are transferred to the 2nd respondent-University of Kerala so that pensionary benefits could be granted to the petitioners. It is also brought to the notice that some of the petitioners are still serving employees and others have retired from service. It is brought to the notice of this Court that petitioners 39 & 40 are widows of the deceased employees concerned, who had retired from service. The 2nd respondent shall send specific concrete proposals for meeting the pensionary liabilities of each of the petitioners, who have retired from service and disburse the pensionary benefits as directed herein. Request may be made for providing financial resources to meet such entire pensionary liabilities. This shall be done by the 2nd respondent within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Request may be made for providing financial resources to meet such entire pensionary liabilities. This shall be done by the 2nd respondent within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. After receipt of such proposal, the competent authority of the 1st respondent-Central Government/Union of India will ensure that financial resources are provided to the 2nd respondent-University to ensure that entire pensionary liabilities in that regard could be paid to the petitioners concerned and action in this regard in providing financial resources should be duly completed by the 1st respondent- Union of India within 5 months from the date of receipt of such proposal that may be submitted by the 2nd respondent-University. After receiving financial resources from the 1st respondent-Union of India, the competent authority of the 2nd respondent-University shall ensure that admissible pensionary benefits are paid and disbursed to those who have retired from service or to the legal representatives of the deceased retired employees concerned workers within 2 months thereafter. It is also ordered that the above said directions to the respondents, more particularly, to the 1st respondent in the matter of meeting the pensionary liabilities will be applicable in future cases of retirement as well. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.