ORDER : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Asthavadi on behalf of the petitioners in both the petitions, learned Advocate Mr. Meet Shah for learned Advocate Mr. A.D. Oza on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 in Special Civil Application No. 13100 of 2021 and on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 in Special Civil Application No. 8306 of 2022 and learned Advocate Mr. Harsheel Shukla on behalf of respondent no.3- Union of India in Special Civil Application No. 13100 of 2021 and on behalf of respondent no. 4 – Union of India in Special Civil Application No. 8306 of 2022. 2. The petitioners herein being legal heirs of retired-deceased employees of respondent no.1 and 2, i.e. as corelatable with Special Civil Application No. 13100 of 2021 and a retired employee, as corelatable to Special Civil Application No. 8306 of 2022 have approached this Court inter alia submitting that the original employees/ the petitioner were working with the Cost of Cultivation Scheme under the Agro Economic Research Centre established by Union of India and whereas it is prayed that the original employees-the petitioner be declared as being entitled for grant of pensionary benefits as was available to the employees of the Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidhya Nagar. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Asthavadi on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the Union of India had set up the Agro Economic Research Centre to study agro economic problems and whereas the said Centre for Western India was set up under the then Vallabhbhai Vidhyapith at Vallabh Vidhya Nagar now known as the Sardar Patel University. 4. It is submitted by learned Advocate that the original employees as well as the employee concerned, were working under the said Centre more particularly they were engaged in “Cost of Cultivation Scheme” being run by the Centre referred to hereinabove. 5. Learned Advocate would submit that since the University was granting pension to its employees and whereas since except for the purpose of grant, for all practical purposes, the petitioners were employees of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University therefore, they would also be entitled to grant of pensionary benefits as being paid to the employees of the Sardar Patel University. 5.1 Learned Advocate Mr. 5.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Ashthavadi would submit that as such, the issue involved is no more res integra, since a Division Bench of this Court in case of Cost of Cultivation Scheme Staff Association vs. Chairman, Governing Body/ Vice Chancellor S.P. University and others in Special Civil Application No. 25157 of 2007 vide decision dated 17.01.2014, had while considering an identical prayer raised by the identically situated petitioners, had held in favour of the petitioners therein inasmuch as the Division Bench had declared that the employees would be entitled to all pensionary benefits as available to the employees of Sardar Patel University and whereas the Union of India was directed to provide necessary financial resources by making necessary budgetary allocation for payment of the benefits. Learned Advocate would submit that the decision of the Division Bench had been assailed by the Union of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by preferring Civil Appeal No. 8196 of 2015 and whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court had not interfered with the said decision. 6. Learned Advocate would further submit that as such, the Union of India had set up Agro Economic Research Centre at various parts of the Country and whereas employees similarly situated to the original petitioner- petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 8306 of 2022 had approached their respective High Courts and whereas the High Courts having held in favour of the employees like had been done by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, vide decision dated 08.02.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was inter alia deciding the challenge not only to the decision of Division Bench in Special Civil Application No. 25157 of 2007 but, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dealing with a bunch of petitions, assailing orders passed by the respective High Courts. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Asthavadi that the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the decisions had refused to entertain the petitions and whereas thereupon, the judgement of the Hon’ble Division Bench attaining finality, the same would be binding on the respondents and whereas since the issue of the petitioners being identically situated to the petitioners of the petition referred to hereinabove, being undeniable, the petitioners may also be declared to be entitled for pensionary benefits etc. 7. This petition is vehemently opposed by learned Advocate Mr. 7. This petition is vehemently opposed by learned Advocate Mr. Meet Shah on behalf of the Sardar Patel University and or various authorities attached with the Sardar Patel University. It is contended by learned Advocate for the University that the petitioners would not be entitled to the benefits more particularly since in case of petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 13100 of 2021, the original employees had expired long back and whereas upon the demise of the employees, prior to or after retirement, the right as available to the petitioners would have got extinguished and whereas the petitioners were therefore, otherwise not entitled to prefer the petitions at all. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would also submit that the case of the petitioners may not be considered by this Court on the ground that the petitioners, at the relevant point of time had received the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund amount and whereas the petitioners after a huge delay, have now approached this Court for grant of pensionary benefits. Learned Advocate would emphasize on the aspect of delay and would submit that the petitioners having approached this Court after more than 15 years of the retirement/demise of the original employees, therefore, this Court may not grant any relief in favour of the petitioners. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would also submit that even service records of some of the employees not available or not traceable since around 15 years have passed from the date of retirement /demise of the employees concerned. 9. As against such submissions learned Advocate Mr. Harsheel Shukla for the Union of India would submit that upon the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench being affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as far as the the present issue is concerned, upon the University submitting an appropriate proposal the University would make appropriate payments and whereas where the petitioners would be entitled to grant of similar benefits or not would be an issue between the University and petitioners only. 10. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. 11. 10. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. 11. The issue which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the petitioners would be entitled to the same treatment as the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 25157 of 2007 more particularly are the petitioners entitled for being declared as eligible for being granted pensionary benefits as provided to the employees of the Sardar Patel University. 12. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the Union of India, it would appear that the Union of India, is very clear about their stand inasmuch as according to the Union of India, the role of the Union of India is with regard to deal with the financial liability for running of the Centre and implementing the schemes run by the center in question. The Union of India, is of the opinion of that upon appropriate proposal being received, by the Union of India from the University, appropriate process would be done and if the petitioners are entitled appropriate amount would also be disbursed in their favour. The Union of India having said thus, the question is as regards the entitlement of the petitioners. 13. As far as the University is concerned, it is not the case of the University that the petitioners are in any manner not similarly situated to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 25157 of 2007 decided by Division Bench of this Court on 17.01.2014. The stand which has been taken by the University is that the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 13100 of 2021 would not be entitled to any of the benefits more particularly since the original employee had expired/retired atleast 15 years prior to filing of the present petition. Insofar as the said aspect is concerned, the second limb of argument of the University being that the right for claiming pension, gets extinguished upon demise of the original employee. The University is also raising a ground with regard to delay. 13.1 This Court is absolutely surprised at the stand taken by the University. The University being the body which is required to process the pension papers and submit the same for appropriate disbursement to the Union of India, the objections being taken as regards non entitlement of the petitioners for pension appears to be quite strange. 13.1 This Court is absolutely surprised at the stand taken by the University. The University being the body which is required to process the pension papers and submit the same for appropriate disbursement to the Union of India, the objections being taken as regards non entitlement of the petitioners for pension appears to be quite strange. It is not the case of the University that the original employees were not employees employed with the Agro Economic Research Center as opened by the Union of India. It is not the case of the University that services of the original employees was not adequate i.e. the employees did not have requisite qualifying services for payment of pension etc. The case of the University being that the original employees having expired atleast 15 years prior to filing of the petition, therefore, the legal heirs of such employees would not be entitled to claim the benefit of pension. In the considered opinion of this Court such a submission cannot be countenanced. An employee upon retirement, if he is covered under an existing pension scheme, would be entitled to claim for pension and whereas upon the unfortunate demise of the employee, his eligible family members would be entitled to claim family pension. Neither the right of pension nor the right of family pension as the case may be would get extinguished upon the unfortunate demise of the employee concerned. The only change that happens as noted hereinabove, is that till the date the employees were alive, the employees would be entitled for family pension and upon the demise of the employees, the entitled legal heirs would be paid the family pension. Thus payment of family pension is a natural consequence of an employee eligible for payment of pension expiring and whereas the submission that upon the demise of the employee the right to claim for pension gets extinguished, appears to be an argument without any legs to stand upon and therefore, the same is not countenanced at all. 14. Thus payment of family pension is a natural consequence of an employee eligible for payment of pension expiring and whereas the submission that upon the demise of the employee the right to claim for pension gets extinguished, appears to be an argument without any legs to stand upon and therefore, the same is not countenanced at all. 14. Insofar as the submission that the original employees at the relevant point of time were paid the Contributory Provident Fund, as was existing at the relevant point of time, therefore, the petitioners would not be entitled for grant of pensionary benefits, it would appear that all employees working with the Agro Economic Research Centre, upon their retirement were being paid Contributory Provident Fund as had been paid to the employees who were petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 25157 of 2007. The only requirement to take care of the said aspect as appears to this Court and as submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Astahvadi would be to either direct the petitioners to deposit the amount of Contributory Provident Fund as received by them and whereas the petitioners be directed to be paid pensionary benefits/family pension from the date of retirement /demise of the employee concerned. 15. Furthermore insofar as the issue of delay is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court the said argument is not open for the University more particularly since according to the University the role of the University is only to compute the benefits as available to the employee concerned and to forward the same to the Union of India for appropriate disbursal. Thus it would appear that in case of the University is that the petitioners before this Court were never employees of the University under such circumstances, when the University is not ready to consider the petitioners /original employees as its own employees, and the only role attributed to the University is of processing the appropriate pension papers, the argument of delay, in the considered opinion of this Court, was not open for the University to have taken. The liability of making payment being upon the Union of India and the Union of India having not raised a contention as regards the petition suffering from delay, it was absolutely not open for the University to have made any submissions with regard to the petition being delayed since the said argument is not corelatable to the status of the University as a body only processing the relevant pension papers of the petitioners and not as the employer of the petitioners/ original employees. 16. As it is, in the considered opinion of this Court, the issue stands finally settled by Division Bench of this Court, vide decision dated 17.01.2014 and whereas the objections taken by the University appear to be absolutely unnecessary. Paragraphs no. 16, 17 and 19 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced herein below for benefit: “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 Center would be met by the Government of I ndia 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 Center 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 Center. 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. 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. 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.” 16.1 It would further appear that while the said decision had been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide decision dated 29.10.2018 in Special Civil Application No. 13978 of 2017, had reiterated the same position more particularly by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. While at this stage it has been contended by learned Advocate Mr. 17. While at this stage it has been contended by learned Advocate Mr. Shah for the University that in case of similarly situated employees who had been paid the benefit of pension, the amount of CPF was directed to be refunded with interest at the rate of 9% and whereas the petitioners may be directed to deposit the amount at the same rate of interest, in the considered opinion of this Court, while such a formula may be something done internally by the University which probably may not have any right to do so since it has always been the case of the University that the petitioners and similarly situated persons were not its employees, yet, since directing the employees to repay the amount with interest would also invite a consequential direction that the Central Government be directed to make the payment with interest, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, without additionally burdening the exchequer or the petitioners, neither the petitioners would be required to make the payment with any interest nor the Central Government be required to make payment of pension with any interest on the payment. 18. While the submission has been supported by learned Advocate Mr. Shukla for the respondents, in the considered opinion of this Court, the formula as directed by this Court above, would met with ends of justice by balancing interest of both parties. 19. Considering the above, while declaring that the petitioners-original employees were entitled to be paid pension and other benefits as paid to petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 25157 of 2007, this Court rejects the arguments raised by the University against the entitlement of the present petitioners. 20. In view of the discussion, observation, and conclusions as arrived at hereinabove, the following directions are passed: [1] The petitioners are declared to be entitled to pensionary benefits as available to the employees of the Sardar Patel University. [2] The University shall process the pension papers of the petitioners and forward the same to the Union of India within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order of this Court. [2] The University shall process the pension papers of the petitioners and forward the same to the Union of India within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order of this Court. [3] Upon the proposals being received by the Union of India, the same shall be processed by the Union of India and whereas appropriate grant for payment of pension and arrears of pension/ family pension shall be forwarded to the University within a period of two moths thereafter. [4] Upon the grant being received by the University, the University shall forthwith i.e. within a week of receipt of the same disburse the same in favour of the present petitioners. [5] The petitioners to either deposit the amount of Contributory Provident Fund as received by them within a period of one month from date of receipt of this order or make an application to the respondent University for giving the petitioners set off of the amount of CPF paid to the original employees-petitioners and whereas upon such an application being received, the same shall be appropriately processed and the amount as paid to the petitioners as CPF shall be set off from the total entitlement of the petitioners and whereas the respondents University shall disburse the entitlement of the petitioners in the manner as above. [6] In the facts of the case neither the petitioners would be required to pay any interest on the CPF amount nor the Central Government be required to make payment of pension with any interest on the arrears. 20. With the above observations and directions, the petitions stand disposed of. Direct service is permitted.