JAGDISH CHANDER BAKSHI Vs. PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who had retired from the service of the Punjab Agricultural University during the period from June 30, 1977 to December 31,1985 and were given the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, question the validity of the Statute bromulgated by the University on November 20, 1991. By this provision, the benefit of pension has been confined only to the persons who had retired on or after January 1, 1986. The only ground raised by the petitioners is that all the retired employes constitute a homogeneous class and a differential treatment based on the date of retirement is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Their representations having been rejected by the University, the petitioners have approached this Court thiough the present writ petition.

(2.) The respondent conlesl the petitioners' claim. It has been inter alia pointed out that initially all the employees of the University were enlided to the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund. On a demand by the employees, the matter was considered in the meeting of the Informal Coordination Forum of the Vicc-Chancellor on September 11, 1989. After-Some discussion, it was decided that in case the Universities could create a Corpus from their Provident Fund Deposils. which together with the normal contribution of the Government, towards Contributory Provident Fund and interest from the Banks on the Corpus Funds, could meet the requirements of pension payment then the University may go ahead with the Pension Scheme. However, before any further action, there should be a meeting between the Vice Chancellors, the Finance and Education Secretary and the Financial Commissioner (Development to make sure that enough funds would be available with each University." The matter was again discussed in the meeting of the Vice Chancellors held in New Delhi on January 17, 1991. It was recommended that the Pension Scheme should become operative for the University employees from 1.1.1986. Thereafter the Board of Management of the University approved the Pension Scheme on May 30,1991 with effect from January 1, 1986. All the Statutes regarding the Pension Scheme were approved by the Board in the meeting held on November 4, 1991. While fixing (he cut off date, the fact that the Central Government had enforced the Pension Scheme and the Slate Government had revised the pay scales and pensionary benefits, with effect from January 1, 1986 was kept in view." On the.se grounds, it is averred that the action of the University is legal, valid and calls for no interference.

(3.) Mr. (i.S. Punia, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no difference between the persons who had retired before and after January 1, 1986. Some of the petitioners who had retired on December 31, 1985, bad been denied the benefit of pension, while those who had retired after that date have been given the benefit of pension. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of the Statute 12 are wholly discriminatory and violative of Article 14. He has further contended that the date fixed by the Statute has no rational relationship with the object of ameliorating the conditions of retired employees. Reference has been made to the averments in para No.3 of the replication to show that the matter was kept pending without any reason and as a result, the interests of the petitioners have been arbitrarily jeopardised. The claim made by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.