PROF V S NANDA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which falls for consideration of the Court is, "whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of five years added service under 28A (1)(h) of the Delhi University Statute". The indisputable facts of the case of the petitioner are these. The petitioner joined as a lecturer in the Department of Physics and Astrophysics in October 1954. He retired on 30.6.1986. He was re-employed for a period of five years till 12.6.1991. The petitioner was not given the benefit of Statute 28A(1)(h) of Delhi University, at the time when his pension was fixed vide letter dated 29.9.1986. As per the above said statute, the University grants the benefit of five years to those, who fall short of 33 years of service for full benefit of pension. The petitioner had completed service up to 31 years 8 months and 12 days on 30.6.1986. If the five years benefit is given to him, it would be deemed that he had completed service for more than 33 years.

(2.) The above said statute came to the knowledge of the petitioner in the year 1999, i.e. after the lapse of 13 years after his retirement. The petitioner made a number of representations but it did not ring the bell. It was pointed out that this Court had already granted relief to another lecturer ECHO is on. Dr.(Mrs.) S. Punnuswamy. The petitioner also cited example of one Dr. S.C. Pancholi, who was also granted this benefit. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition was filed with the prayers that writ of certiorari for quashing the letter No. Estab.(T)/V/2003/7554 dated 9/12/13.05.2003 issued by the Asstt. Registrar (Estab-T) and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to award the benefit of Statute 28A(1)(h) of the Delhi University Statutes to the petitioner, to carry out refixation of his pension, family pension and other consequential retiral benefits by adding five years qualifying service as provided therein be issued.

(3.) In its counter affidavit, the respondent has objected that the instant petition is highly belated and is being filed after the lapse of 13 years. It was explained that judgment in the case of Dr. S. Punuswamy had peculiar facts and the order passed by this Court clearly mentioned that same would not be considered as precedent in respect of any other case. It is for the petitioner to prove that his case falls within the four corners of Statute 28(A)(1)(h) Note 1. Moreover, the Executive Council vide Resolution No. 151, dated 27.01.1975, provided that if any individual is aggrieved by any decision of the University, he/ she would be free to represent against the same upto a period of three years. The petitioner was a teacher for a number of years and therefore he should have familiarized himself with the provision in question.