I P SARASWAT Vs. UNIVERSITY OF ROORKEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. S. Rawa, J. By means of this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought following reliefs : " (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27-01-1989 passed by the University and the order of the University dated 5-8-1986 (Annexure -4 to the peti tion ). (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the University to take into considera tion the service rendered by the petitioner in the Central Govern ment for the purpose of fixing pen sion and other retirement benefit to the petitioner. (iii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. (iv) Award the cost of the proceed ings to the petitioner. "

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that on 24-04-1944 he was employed in the of fice of Controller of Inspection, Minis try of Defence, Government of India and he was relieved from there on 14-05-1959. THEreafter, the petitioner joined the Atomic Energy Establishment (re named as 'bhabha Atomic Research Centre), Trombay, Bombay a Class-I Gazetted Officer on 03-08-1959. THE said establishment was also a Central Government department. THE petitioner remained in the Bhabha Atomic Re search Centre upto 23-07- 1962. THEre after, the petitioner joined the University of Roorkee (renamed as 'i. I. T. Roorkee') on 01-08- 1962 and retired as Professor on 07-07-1984. THE petitioner was draw ing gross salary of Rs. 4000/- per month at the time of retirement from the Uni versity. THE State of U. P issued G. O. No. 789/84/77/84 dated 22-09-1984 (Annexure-3 to the petition) in which it has been provided that the employees and the teachers would be entitled for pension and other reliefs on the same terms and conditions as are applicable to the State Government employees. Pursuant to the said G. O. the petitioner opted for the family pension under the General Provident Fund Scheme and the University accepted the option of the petitioner. Prior to 1984, the petitioner was entitled for pension under the con tributory fund scheme. THE respondents without taking into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner in the Central Government establishments and taking into consideration the length of service of the petitioner in the University fixed the pension of the petitioner as Rs. 547/- per month plus admissible dear-ness allowances vide order dated 05-08-1986 (Annexure-4 to the petition. THE University sanctioned the pension of the petitioner without considering the serv ice rendered by him in the Central Gov ernment department. According to the petitioner, the service rendered by him in the Central Government for a period of 18 years should be included while com puting the pension of the petitioner. THE petitioner approached the University au thorities for inclusion of 18 years of serv ice of the petitioner rendered in the Central Government for the purpose of fixation of pension by the University. Vide order dated 14- 05-1986 the said request of the petitioner was not ac cepted by the University on the ground that the services rendered by the peti tioner in the Central Government could have been considered only if the peti tioner would have been on deputation. THEreafter, the petitioner made a repre sentation dated 30- 09-1988 to the Reg istrar of the University. On the said rep resentation, the Registrar, University of Roorkee rejected the same vide im pugned order dated 27-01-1989 on the ground that the petitioner was never taken on deputation basis and the joined as fresh appointee in the University. THE Registrar, University of Roorkee has fur ther communicated the petitioner that the services rendered at the University or affiliated colleges within the State only may be counted as qualifying service for pension benefits alongwith the services rendered at the University, hence the case of the petitioner is not covered under the pension rules admissible to the University. Feeling aggrieved by this, the present writ petition has been filed be fore this Court.

(3.) IT was vehemently argued by Mr. Manoj Tiwari learned counsel for the pe titioner that paras 1,2 & 7 of G. O. No. 789/84/77/84 dated 22-09-1984 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) clearly indicates that the pension benefits and other reliefs as are applicable to the State employees are also applicable to the employees of the University IT was further contended that the State em ployees are entitled for the benefit of service rendered by them in the Central Government. IT was further contended that the respondents had illegally denied for giving the service benefit of 18 years to the petitioner rendered in the Central Government. IT was further contended that the impugned orders are illegal. Learned counsel for the respondents re futed contention and contended that para 2 (6) of the aforesaid G. O. clearly provides that the earlier services prior to joining the present institution will be counted for the purpose of computing the pension if the earlier service has been rendered in the State institution under the State Government. IT was further contended that the Government had is sued a clarification on 23-04-1986 (Annexure-C. A.-I) which clearly indicates that the services rendered outside the State Government will not be taken into account for computing the pension ben efits. Para 2 (5) & (6) & para 7 are quoted below :