GIRIJA SHANKER PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALOK Basil, J. Dr. Girija Shankar Pandey has challenged the order of the Vice Chancellor. Gorakhpur University, dated 18-12-1995 whereby the petitioner's representation has been cancelled.

(2.) THE short facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the department of Education in Gorakhpur University on 22-7-1957. Having attained the age of 60 years on 31-10-1984, the petitioner was superan nuated on the said date. It may be men tioned that prior to the coming into force of the Government Order dated 31-7-1993, the petitioner was entitled to the scheme by which contributory provident fund benefits were available to him. It ap pears that after considering the various pension schemes in vogue in the State as well as several judicial decisions, the aforesaid Government Order came into being which provided an opportunity to the teachers to give an option for pension ary benefits notwithstanding the fact that they had already obtained the amount on retirement which was known as con tributory provident fund. THE petitioner's case is that he had opted for the pension scheme inasmuch as they University started releasing the pension to the petitioner but the Finance Officer raised certain objections as a result of which the matter went to the Vice-Chancellor and by the impugned order the Vice-Chancellor held the view that since the petitioner retired with effect from 31- 10-1984 that is not before 1-1-1984, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to give the op tion under the Government Order dated 31-7-1993.

(3.) THERE are some factual averments existing paragraphs 20,20-A and 21 of the writ petition which read as under: "20. That on 20-12-95 Hon'ble D. B. S. Chauhan, J. was pleased to dispose of contempt petition No. 1284 of 1995 with an observation "that if the petitioner is not satisfied by the said order, he can ventilate the grievance by chal lenging the same before appropriate forum. "20-A. That the facts related to case of the petitioner has been twisted and erroneously presented in the order of Vice-Chancellor. He illegally and without application of mind and proper consideration to the Government Order dated 31-7-93 acted in haste to avoid the conse quences of contempt proceeding and travelled beyond the scope of controversy regarding adjustment of contributory provident fund with the arrears of pension as directed by Hon'ble Court by order dated 26-5-95 and 1-9-95 making them migatory, it is stated in his order dated 18-12-95 that the petitioner did not sub mit the option paper under Government Order dated 24-12-83. This statement is wrong as it was obligatory to all teachers to give their options on prescribed option paper and on the basis of their options, the retirement benefit was to be decided. As the petitioner had given his option for contributory provident fund, the total provident fund amount was released in his favour on the basis of option given by him. In this connec tion the petitioner is to add further that Prof. R. P. Rastogi, Department of Chemistry, Prof. R. C. Tiwari, Department of Hindi, Dr. Tulsi Misra, Department of Hindi, Dr. R. P. Barnwal, Department of Education, Dr. (Km.) Shobha Garg, Department of Education and many other teachers retired from University service after 1-1-1994 and received their full provident fund amount as all had given option for con tributory provident fund under Government Order dated 24-12-1983. Again all of them opted for pension/family pension benefit as provided under Government Order dated 30-7-1993. "21. That pension to the above mentioned retired teachers was sanctioned by the Vice-Chancellor and pension payment orders were issued accordingly. They received their monthly pension from July 1993 to November 1994. The adjustment of their paid contributory provident fund amount with arrears of pension were made as provided under Government Order dated 30-7-93. To best of the knowledge of the petitioner most of them are getting their pension through treasury. "