PROF DR SURESH CHANDRA MALLICK Vs. THE CHANCELLOR, ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to draw the pension under Notification dated 11.8.1987 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition and for disbursement of necessary pensionary benefits.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Professor in Orissa University of Agricultural and Technology (hereinafter called OUAT) on 26.9.1967. While he was serving, he was following the Pension Scheme but vide Notification No.23449 dated 11.8.1987, the OUAT allowed its employees to exercise option to continue in the Pension Scheme or to sit in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (in short CPF Scheme) and accordingly the present petitioner exercised option to switch over from CPF Scheme to Pension Scheme which was accepted by the OUAT on 20.8.1988 vide Annexure-2. Be it stated, OUAT issued another Notification bearing No.20111 dated 26.6.1989 inviting fresh options from those employees, who had chosen not to exercise any option in pursuance of the previous notification dated 11.8.1987 and also the employees who have already been exercised their option, could yet again chose to be covered under either Pension Scheme or the CPF Scheme. As such, the OUAT created confusion in the mind of the employees for which the petitioner again gave option to switch over to CPF Scheme from Pension Scheme and the same has been accepted by the OUAT. Thereafter, the petitioner got superannuation by attaining the age of 60 years on 31.3.2004.

(3.) It is stated that the petitioner purportedly wrote a letter on 27.1.2007 to the Chancellor of the OUAT requesting to allow him pension and other retrial benefits according to the Pension Scheme vide Annexure-4 series to the writ petition. Since no reply was received, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6506 of 2009 before this Court and in that case, the OUAT was directed to disburse the calculated pension amount to the petitioner without prejudice to his rights. The opposite parties have released an amount of Rs.10,86,174/- in favour of the petitioner but he refused to accept the same as OUAT did not give details of heading of payment. As there was a talk for amicable settlement between the parties, the petitioner withdrew the above writ petition on 16.11.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner purportedly approached the Chancellor of the OUAT for payment of pension on the basis of his claim originally made. But, finding no other relief, the petitioner filed Misc. Case No.9283 of 2015 in the above disposed of writ petition and this Court disposed of that misc. case with a liberty to approach the opposite parties to settle the claim. Since the purpose of the petitioner could not be served in spite of the approach to the authorities of the OUAT, the petitioner filed this instant writ petition on 10.11.2015 praying to declare the notification of the OUAT issued on 26.6.1989 under Annexure-3 to be illegal and not binding and to accept his option, as exercised by him, in pursuance of the Notification dated 11.8.1987 and disburse the petitioner of such retiral benefits.