MANGAL CHANDRA JAIN KAGZI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT does the term `salary' means for the purpose of deduction of contributory provident fund etc. Is it the basic salary or the allowances as well. It is the only point involved in the present case and on the basis of such defi-nition of `salary', the petitioner challenges the Statute 41 of the University Statute to be declared as ultravires of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, with the further prayer that the petitioner be afforded the retiral benefits in accordance with law by considering the full salary of the petitioner and not the basic salary.

(2.) THE facts are not disputed. THE petitioner had joined the service of University of Rajasthan as Professor in the Department of Law in the year 1978. He had served upto 31. 5. 1987 when he had superannuated. He was re-appointed for a period of one month upto 30. 6. 1987. At the time of retirement he was holding the post of Principal, Law College and Head of the Department and Dean of the Faculty of Law. He was not paid the contribution made to his provident fund account in accordance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act) and, therefore, he had to approach this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1384/88 which was ultimately decided on 19. 4. 1994 by Mr. Justice G. S. Singhvi and a direction was issued to the respondent University to pay to the petitioner the interest @ 12% p. a. on the amount of pension, provident fund and gratuity payable to the petitioner on the date of his retirement w. e. f. 1. 6. 1987 till the date of actual payment.

(3.) THE benefit of the above-said amended rule was extended to the petitioner so far the gratuity is concerned as has been admitted in the written statement. It is stated that for the reason that the petitioner had not opted either under the old rules or the new rules, therefore, the petitioner was granted the gratuity as per new rules.