G B PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE & TECHNOLOGY PANT NAGAR AND ANOTHER Vs. DEO MANI TRIPATHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are respondent nos. 1 and 3 in the writ petition respectively. Respondent no. 1 in the Special Appeal is the writ petitioner (from hereinafter referred to as the "writ petitioner"). He approached the writ court seeking the following prayer :

(2.) The writ petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Office of the Appellant-University on 23.07.1969. Subsequently, by order dated 15.07.1970 of the Appellant-University, the writ petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 120-220 on the post of Account Clerk (Annexure No. 2). Thereafter, it is the case of the writ petitioner that he was being transferred from time to time from one office to another office of the University. He was being paid salary as admissible to the employees of the University, which was higher than the Clerks working in the recognized intermediate colleges. The writ petitioner retired on 30.09.2004. It is his case that he was getting salary as per the employees of the University. The writ petitioner was promoted by order dated 26.07.2004 on the post of Head Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000 and the Finance Controller was directed to fix the salary of the writ petitioner (Annexure No. 5). It is his further case that at the time of his retirement, his basic salary was Rs. 6,500/- and with allowances he was drawing Rs. 11,335/-. He alleged before the learned Single Judge that he came to know that the University was maintaining two service books; one service book was prepared according to the pay scale of the Education Department, in which the basic salary was Rs. 5,250/-. A photocopy of the relevant page has been produced as Annexure No. 6. He alleges that there would be a loss of Rs. 1,250/- per month. He addressed Annexure No. 7 representation to the Vice Chancellor. Annexure No. 8 is the proceeding of the second respondent fixing the pension of the writ petitioner, treating him in the basic salary of Rs. 5,250/- on the date of his retirement. The writ petitioner submitted Annexure No. 10 representation dated 13.06.2005. Annexure No. 11 is order dated 19.07.2005 passed by the Appellant- University virtually rejecting the representation of the writ petitioner. It is thereupon, that the writ petitioner approached this Court.

(3.) The learned Single Judge found that the writ petitioner was an employee of the University. There is nothing to show that he has ceased to be an employee of the University. The contentions of the appellants that the inter college, in which the writ petitioner was appointed, had a separate Committee of Management and also that having regard to the option exercised by the writ petitioner, he ceased to be an employee of the University, were not accepted. Regarding the option exercised by the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge found that the option nowhere states that the writ petitioner has now opted to be an employee of the State Education Department and relinquished the University of its liabilities. On this reasoning, inter alia the writ petition was allowed; the writ petitioner was found to be an employee of the University; and the Registrar of the University was directed to treat the writ petitioner as such, to fix the pension of the writ petitioner and to pay the same including the post retiral benefits within a period of three months.