MAQSOOD MEHMOOD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner was a State Government employee and he moved to Aligarh Muslim University in order to get the service under the Central Government on the policy of mobility of person between Central Government department and autonomous body count ing of service for pension. The petitioner had retired in December, 1995 from Aligarh Muslim University. By a letter dated 9-8-1990 before his retirement, the Aligarh Muslim University had written to the Director of Technical Education, U. P. for releasing the capitalised value of pen sion in respect of the petitioner, which is Annexure 9 to the writ petition. It is al leged that despite the relevant provisions and different circulars and the said requisi tion, the said capitalised value have not been released by the Government of State of U. P. The question as to whether the Central Government circular is applicable to State Government employee to the autonomous body fallen for decision in the case of Jagat Prakash Chaturvedi v. State of U. P. and others, 1993 (3) UPLBEC 1767, wherein referring to the relevant cir culars it was held that a person employed in the Central Government absorbed in Central Autonomous bodies was to be governed by the relevant circular being the memorandum dated 29-8-1984 described as "mobility of personnel between Central Government departments and autonomous bodies counting of service for pension. " While interpreting the same it has held that the said circular applied only in respect of Central Government, Central Government Autonomous body or a statutory body. The question of State Government employee moving to Central Government autonomous body or statutory body was considered by the Central Government which had issued a circular on 7-2-1988 to all the Chief Secretaries of the States. The findings of the said Division Bench which are relevant for our purpose as engrafted in paras 11 and 12 of the said decision is quoted below: - "11. We may now turn to the Central Government Orders which, according to the petitioner, are binding upon the Stale Govern ment. The first order in the shape of Office Memorandum is dated 29th August, 1984, (An-nexure 12 ). This Office Memorandum has been issued from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department: of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. The subject of this Memorandum is 'mobility of Personnel between Central Government departments and Autonomous Bodies counting of service for Pension. " In para graph 3 (A) it has been laid down as follows: "where a Central Government employee borne on pensionable: establishment is allowed to be absorbed in an autonomous be counted towards pension under the autonomous body irrespective of whether the employee was tem porary or permanent in Government. The pen sionary benefits will, however, accrue only if the temporary service is followed by confirmation. If he retires as a temporary employee in the autonomous body, he will get terminal benefits as are normally available to temporary employee under the Government. The same procedure will apply in the case of employees of the autonomous bodies who are permanently absorbed under the Central Government. The Government/autonomous body will discharge its pension liability by paying in lump sum as a one- time payment, the pro-rata pen sion/service gratuity/terminal gratuity and DCRG for the service upto the date of absorp tion in the autonomous body/government as the case may be, lump sum amount of the prorata pension will be determined with reference to commutation table laid down in CCS (Com mutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, as amended from time to time. The Office Memorandum contemplates one time lump sum payment by the Central Government where its employee is absorbed in a Central Autonomous Body, The Office Memorandum applies only to Central Govern ment employees moving to a central autonomous body or statutory body and vice versa. It does not apply to a State Government employees moving a central autonomous body or statutory body. 12. It appears that a representation was made to the Central Government by the State Government employees for expanding the benefit of the above Government order to the State Government employees moving to central autonomous or statutory bodies. The Central Government consulted the State Government and thereafter issued a circular Setter dated 7-2-1988 to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments. A copy of this circular letter is Annexure '11'. In paragraph 2 of this letter it is mentioned: "in the circumstances explained above, it was felt that reciprocal arrangements may be entered into with the various State Govern ments to the effect that where employees of the State Governments. State Autonomous Bodies/state Statutory Bodies, have been ab sorbed in the Central Autonomous Bodies, they may be allowed the same benefits as have been extended to the Central Government Servants and vice versa. "

(2.) THE said judgment was also fol lowed by this Court in another Division Bench in writ petition No. 31060 of 1994 disposed of on 1-11-1995 between Dr. O. R Mathurv, State of U. P. and others.