UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PREM LATA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-University of Rajasthan ha put into question legality of the orders passed by the Single Bench in Civil Writ Petitions No. 2240/2010 and 6014/2008 on 1.2.2011 and 23.5.2011 respectively directing the University of Rajasthan to extend the pensionary benefits to the petitioners within the framework of the University Pension Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pension Regulations of 1990'). The petitioners, namely, Prem Lata Agarwal, after rendering continuous service for more than 20 years, retired from the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer), Chemistry w.e.f. 30.6.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. Similar, petitioner, Dr. Janki D. Moorjani was appointed as Assistant Professor (Lecturer) in the Department of Psychology, University of Rajasthan vide order dated 20/21.8.1985 and after rendering continuous service for about 22 years, she was retired w.e.f. 30.6.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation.

(2.) It was submitted that petitioner-Prem Lata Agarwal was appointed in the year 1981 as Assistant Professor (Lecturer), Chemistry after following due process of selection. The applications were invited by issuing advertisement and having found suitable for the post, she was appointed vide order dated 5.1.1981 in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974, later amended by the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act N. 18 of 1984) to be cited as the "Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1974'). Similarly, the appointment order of petitioner-Dr. Janki D. Moorjani mentions that she was appointed under the provisions of Section 3(23) of the Act of 1974. The appointment was made on adhoc basis upto the last working day of the current academic session or till further orders whichever was earlier. However, the fact remains that both the petitioners continued to serve uninterruptedly till they attained the age of superannuation. On coming into force of Pension Regulations of 1990, options were invited from the employees. The petitioners-respondents were asked to opt either for pension under the Pension Regulations of 1990 or to continue in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (for short "the CPF Scheme"). Both the petitioners-respondents had opted for pension and thereafter, they retired after rendering services for more than 20 and 22 years respectively. Though the age of retirement of Prem Lata Agarwal fell on 25.3.2001, however, considering the provisions of the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Teachers) Ordinance, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance of 2008'), she was retired w.e.f. 30.6.2001 at the end of the academic session. Similarly, Dr. Janki D. Moorjani was retired w.e.f. 30.6.2007, though as per date of birth, she attained the age of superannuation on 15.6.2007. In the pay slips, it was mentioned that they have opted for pension scheme. The pay slip of Dr. Janki D. Moorjani for the month of June 2007 (Ann.9) and that of Prem Lata Agarwal for the month of February 2001 (Ann.2) in writ petitions Nos. 6014/2008 and 2740/2010 respectively have been placed on record.

(3.) The petitioners have submitted that the benefits of regular lecturers were extended to them. Increments were added every year and the benefit of pay scale was also given to them. Prem Lata Agarwal has done M.Sc. in Chemistry in the year 1966 with specialization in Inorganic Chemistry. She did Ph.D. in the year 1971. she worked with famous academicians. There is a long list of her publication work, refreshers/orientation courses, post doctoral research, prizes/scholarship/fellowship. Before joining the University of Rajasthan she has also worked as Lecturer in Chemistry in Women's College, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi from 1970 to 1976. Thereafter, she has joined the service in the University of Rajasthan. The petitioners-respondents were made to suffer stagnation on the post of Assistant Professor. Their cases were not considered for subsequent promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme. However, order of their retirement from service was passed on attaining the age of superannuation. Still they were deprived of the retiral benefits, though they had completed the formalities. As needful was not done and due pensionary benefits were not paid, a legal notice was served upon the appellants and despite that, when nothing was done and their grievances were not redressed by the appellants, the writ applications were filed before the Single Bench. It was submitted in the writ applications that they are entitled for the pensionary benefits under the Pension Regulations of 1990. Even they have also been deprived from the benefit of CPF Scheme. Their appointments were made as per the provisions of the Act of 1974. After coming into force of the Pension Regulations of 1990, options were invited and both petitioners have opted for pension scheme, which is evident from the pay slips also and thus, when they had exercised option to avail benefit of the pension scheme, the University was not justified in denying pensionary benefits. The University could not turn round and say that the petitioners were not entitled to pensionary benefits, especially when University has also contributed the amount payable towards the CPF in Pension Scheme. As per proviso (c) to Regulation 2(ii) of the Pension Regulations of 1990, appointments of the petitioners-respondents should be treated as regular one. Ordinance of 2008 also provides for regularization of services of such employees who have continued in service for such a long period. Even in the case of services as work-charge employees, as per the State Government guidelines, ten years' service has to be treated as qualifying service towards pensionary benefits. The employees, who have rendered service for 10 or more years, are deemed to be absorbed in the University of Rajasthan. Proviso (b) to Regulation 2 of Pension Regulations of 1990 is not applicable to the case of petitioners.