LAWS(ALL)-1992-6-8

ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY RETIRED TEACHERS ASSOCIATION Vs. ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY

Decided On June 24, 1992
Allahabad University Retired Teachers Association Appellant
V/S
ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by an association of retired teachers of the Allahabad University. The members of the association are 25 retired Professors of the University and some are even retired Vice-Chancellors. It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that the members of the petitioner association are entitled to get pension and gratuity under the G.O. dated 24.12.1983 (Annexure 1 to the petition). Under the aforesaid G.O. teachers who retired on or after 1.1.1984 are entitled to pension and gratuity. It is alleged in para 6 that the retired teachers applied for pension under the said G.O. but to no avail.

(2.) IN para 7 of the petition it is alleged that some of retired teachers were allotted residential accommodation on rent by the University, while others were not given any such accommodation. Some of the retired teachers have vacated the accommodation allotted to them. However, some of the retired teachers are continuing to reside in the University accommodation, but it is claimed that they are tenants and are paying their rent regularly to the University. The prayer in this petition is that the respondents be directed to pay pension and gratuity to the retired teachers of the University.

(3.) IN paragraphs 8 and 10 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that some teachers have not vacated the accommodation allotted to them by the University even after retirement and they have not produced no dues certificate and unless this is done the pension will not be released. In support of this contention learned Counsel for the University invited my attention to Annexure 8 of the counter-affidavit which is copy of G.O. dated 2.5.1989 directing that pension to retired teachers of the University should only be paid if there are no dues against them and they have vacated the quarters which had been allotted to them by the University. Counsel also placed before me a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, Daya Shanker Lal v. Vice Chancellor, 1992 ACJ 451 : 1992(1) ARC 55 (DB), and has urged that the point canvassed in this petition has already been decided by the Bench.