SAHADEO MISHRA Vs. RANCHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ application is a retired teacher of the St. Xavier's College, Ranchi, which is an institution owned and run by a minority and is one of the admitted colleges of the Ranchi University. The petitioner has prayed for payment of retirement benefits as per the Statutes of the Ranchi University. Though the prave in the write application is not very clear as to the exact relief prayed for by the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wanted that he should be given the benefit of the scheme known as the general Provident -Fund -cum -pension -Gratuity Scheme which is payble under the Statutes framed for the grant of retirement benefits to employees of the Bihar/Ranchi/Bhagalpur/Magadh/MIN./Mithila/K.S.D, Sanskrit Universities which has come into force from the 14th of November, 1980.

(2.) The Petitioner was appointed as lecturer in the St. Xavier's College on 18.7.52 in the department Commerce. He was promoted as college professor/Reader on 1.1.76. The petitioner superannuated on 31.8.85. Much before that, in the year 1984 in view of the revised Statutes of the University relating to retirement benefits to employees of the Ranchi University and other Universities, the college asked for options from its teachers. In response to the above, the petitioner opted for the General Provident Fund -cum -Pension -cum -Gratuity scheme. Again on 23.7.85. The Principal of the College asked members of the staff whether they wished to make any change of option submitted in the year 1984 regarding retirement benefit scheme. Since the petitioner did not change his option, he did not reply to the notice aforesaid. The petitioner before his retirement; wrote letters to the Principal of the College for finalising his retirement benefits. In response to his letter, the Principal of the College informed him by letter dated 3.10.95 that the college was not in a position to implement the new Statute relating to the retirement benefits since the college did not have sufficient fund to pay pension to its staff. The petitioner, thereafter, represented to the Vice -Chancellor of the University on 3.3.1986 which was followed by a reminder on 26.8.86, The University by its letter dated 27.9.1986 called for comments of the Principal of the college on the petitioner's representation. The petitioner did not receive any reply from the University and was, therefore, compelled to submit a representation to the Chancellor of the University on 29.4.87, but even then he was not favoured with any response. Under these circumstances, the petitioner moved the instant writ application.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his service conditions were covered by the Statutes framed by the University read with the provision of the relevant University Act. Under the Statutes, the respondents were bound to give to the petitioner the retirement benefits to which he was entitled. The petitioner had opted for the revised retirement scheme, know as the General Provident Fund -cum -Pension -cum -Gratuity scheme, The College was bound by the Statute of the University and was, therefore, bound to implement the scheme. The University had the statutory obligation to get the Statutes implemented if any admitted college did not implement the Statutes. It was submitted that the Statutes under which the retirement scheme opted for by the petitioner was formulated, was binding upon the college even if it was a minority institution. The ground of non -availability of fund was not a valid ground for non -implementation of the Statute. It was, therefore, submitted that non -payment of retirement benefits as per the Statutes of the University to a teacher in a minority affiliated institution was arbitrary and discriminatory.