ARVIND VISHNU PATANKAR Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to quash and set aside the orders declining to grant pension benefits by Western Regional Instrumentation Center and for direction to any of the four respondents, namely, University Grants Commission, State of Maharashtra, University of Mumbai and Wester Regional Instrumentation Centre, Mumbai to apply the service rules and direct the respondents to release and pay pension with effect from 1st July, 1992 when the petitioner attained superannuation and also to recover employees contribution fund paid to the petitioner at the time of superannuation from the arrears of pension and continue to pay the pension in respect of the service rendered for Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (T.I.R.F.) and Western Regional Instrumentation Center (WRIC).

(2.) IT is necessary to briefly deal with the facts before dealing with the petition as under: - The Petitioner holds a PH.D. in Solid State Physics. In the year 1955, he joined as Research Assistant with Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. In 1960, the Petitioner was sent to University of Newcastle upon where he worked till 1967. In May, 1976 T.I.F.R. assigned to the Petitioner the task of setting up of Western Regional Instrumentation Center / respondent No.4 at Mumbai as a University Institution. The Petitioner worked as Professor and Director of WRIC from 31st March, 1979 till his retirement on 31st July, 1992. Meanwhile, in 1985 -86 the 3rd Respondent - University adopted a Pension Scheme for its employees (University Pension Scheme). In view of the fact that the Petitioner shifted to WRIC, he could not avail the benefits under the first University Pension Scheme. On or about 9th January, 1992 the Petitioner vide a letter of even date addressed to the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner recorded that he was due for superannuation by the end of July, 1992 and he is given to understand from the 1st Respondent that WRIC was the responsibility of the 1st Respondent and enquired about pension benefits of the Petitioner.

(3.) IN March, 1996, UGC conveyed its approval to the Pension Scheme for WRIC. On 15th January, 1997 WRIC wrote a letter to UGC suggesting that the request made by the Petitioner and one Mr.V.M. Vohra, both of whom retired before 1st August, 1995 may be considered favourably. In this letter, WRIC observed that the Petitioner had received his provident fund dues including the amount of WRIC contribution. On or about 31st March, 1997, UGC informed the WRIC that the Commission has considered the proposal of the pension benefits and gratuity scheme, but by virtue of clause 4 of the Pension -cum -Gratuity scheme, it may not be possible to extend the benefit to ex -employees since the scheme came into effect from 1st August, 1995 and the Petitioner and Mr. V.M. Vohra retired since July, 1992 and July, 1994 respectively. Vide letter dated 1st July, 2000, WRIC informed the Petitioner that benefits of the new scheme could not be extended to the Petitioner. The record indicates that prior to this belated communication, the Petitioner's request for pension benefits was being considered at various level. However, the fact remains that the Petitioner was denied the benefit. Thus, pursuant to the communication dated 1st July, 2000 the Petitioner issued a legal notice dated 6th February, 2001.