RADHAKANT VERMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus against the respondents for counting his previous services, which he has rendered with the Allahabad University before his appointment with the Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner has rendered his services with the Allahabad University for a period from 17.7.1964 till 23.3.1985. During this period, he has applied for the post of Professor without prior permission of the Allahabad University. THE petitioner was selected and appointed by the Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa by order dated 24.3.1985. Initial appointment of the petitioner was on probation. THE petitioner, while working with the new University i.e. Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa submitted his resignation with his earlier employer i.e. Allahabad University by moving an application on 23.3.1987, the same was accepted on 24.3.1987. THE petitioner retired with his new employer w.e.f. 31.10.1997 and thereafter, applied for his pensionary benefits. THE respondents have not calculated, for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the services of the petitioner, which he had rendered with his earlier employer i.e. Allahabad University and it is also the grievance of the petitioner that the service which the petitioner has rendered with the new employer i.e. Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa on probation, has also not been counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

(3.) ON behalf of respondents, though it was argued that the petitioner's lien was terminated with the Allahabad University and before his lien is terminated with the earlier University and petitioner was appointed with the new University then the lien of the petitioner continues to be at two places, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to count his previous services for the pensionary benefits. Submission in this regard is considered. It is to be seen that with regard to counting of previous services for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the lien certainly has to be counted of an incumbent after he submits resignation or he resigns. In the present case, the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by earlier employer on 24.3.1987 and before termination of such lien, the petitioner continues to be into employment of new University/employer but his lien is terminated with the previous employer only after his resignation is accepted. Merely because lien is terminated with the previous employer subseqently after the date of employment with the new employer, does not mean that services rendered by the petitioner with the present employer shall be ignored. It is not the case of the respondent that petitioner had been working at both the places and has been receiving salary from both the places. But after the appointment of the petitioner with the new employer, he has to apply for termination of his lien by way of resignation and it would certainly be a technical resignation in terms of circular (Annexure P-5) and therefore, the services of the petitioner, rendered with the earlier employer, have to be counted.