Dr. Arvind Vishnu Patankar vs University Grants Commission, State of Maharashtra and Western Regional Instrumentation Centre

A.K. Menon, J.—The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to quash and set aside the orders declining to grant pension benefits by Western Regional Instrumentation Center and for direction to any of the four respondents, namely, University Grants Commission, State of Maharashtra, University of Mumbai and Wester Regional Instrumentation Centre, Mumbai to apply the service rules and direct the respondents to release and pay pension with effect from 1st July, 1992 when the petitioner attained superannuation and also to recover employees contribution fund paid to the petitioner at the time of superannuation from the arrears of pension and continue to pay the pension in respect of the service rendered for Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (T.I.R.F.) and Western Regional Instrumentation Center (WRIC).

It is necessary to briefly deal with the facts before dealing with the petition as under:-

The Petitioner holds a PH.D. in Solid State Physics. In the year 1955, he joined as Research Assistant with Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. In 1960, the Petitioner was sent to University of Newcastle upon where he worked till 1967. In May, 1976 T.I.F.R. assigned to the Petitioner the task of setting up of Western Regional Instrumentation Center/respondent No. 4 at Mumbai as a University Institution. The Petitioner worked as Professor and Director of WRIC from 31st March, 1979 till his retirement on 31st July, 1992. Meanwhile, in 1985-86 the 3rd Respondent-University adopted a Pension Scheme for its employees (University Pension Scheme). In view of the fact that the Petitioner shifted to WRIC, he could not avail the benefits under the first University Pension Scheme. On or about 9th January, 1992 the Petitioner vide a letter of even date addressed to the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner recorded that he was due for superannuation by the end of July, 1992 and he is given to understand from the 1st Respondent that WRIC was the responsibility of the 1st Respondent and enquired about pension benefits of the Petitioner.

The petitioner contends that the issue of pension remained unresolved, meanwhile the petitioner''s name was recommended to the Tertiary Education Commission of Mauritius who were desirous in setting Instrumentation Centre in Mauritius. The petitioner undertook the said assignment from September, 1996 and was gainfully employed till 1st September, 2001. Vide a letter dated 1st May, 1992, the Chairman of Respondent No. 1 informed the Petitioner that his case was being examined. The implementation of the Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme for the academic and non academic staff of WRIC came into effect from 1st September, 1995. The relevant provisions of the Scheme relied upon by the Petitioner are reproduced below:-

The Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme for WRIC staff come in force w.e.f. 1st August, 1995. One month''s time shall be given to the present employees of WRIC to exercise their option for either CPF or Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme which shall be final and binding on the employee. Persons joining WRIC service after the introduction of this scheme shall be entitled to the Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme only.

With the introduction of the Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme, the Centre shall cease to contribute its share of Provident Fund Scheme in respect of those employees who have opted for this scheme.

The deduction towards GPF/CPF shall be sent to the University of Bombay as is being done at present. On retirement, the employee shall be paid GPF/CPF by the University of Bombay while the gratuity and pension dues shall be paid by WRIC.

In March, 1996, UGC conveyed its approval to the Pension Scheme for WRIC. On 15th January, 1997 WRIC wrote a letter to UGC suggesting that the request made by the Petitioner and one Mr. V.M. Vohra, both of whom retired before 1st August, 1995 may be considered favourably. In this letter, WRIC observed that the Petitioner had received his provident fund dues including the amount of WRIC contribution. On or about 31st March, 1997, UGC informed the WRIC that the Commission has considered the proposal of the pension benefits and gratuity scheme, but by virtue of clause 4 of the Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme, it may not be possible to extend the benefit to ex-employees since the scheme came into effect from 1st August, 1995 and the Petitioner and Mr. V.M. Vohra retired since July, 1992 and July, 1994 respectively. Vide letter dated 1st July, 2000, WRIC informed the Petitioner that benefits of the new scheme could not be extended to the Petitioner. The record indicates that prior to this belated communication, the Petitioner''s request for pension benefits was being considered at various level. However, the fact remains that the Petitioner was denied the benefit. Thus, pursuant to the communication dated 1st July, 2000 the Petitioner issued a legal notice dated 6th February, 2001.

WRIC/Respondent No. 4 has filed the affidavit of Deputy Registrar in-charge of WRIC contending inter alia that WRIC staff are not eligible for the Pension Scheme of University of Mumbai. It is applicable only to those who are paid under the Salary Payment Scheme of the State Government. It is contended that it is only on 15th July, 1993 i.e. after the retirement of the Petitioner a proposal was made for providing pension benefits to WRIC employees. A letter dated 9th June, 1995 from WRIC to UGC i.e. Respondent No. 1 records that UGC has agreed for Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme for WRIC staff and subsequently, it appears to have been approved by the Government on 23rd June, 1995 (WRIC Scheme). The WRIC scheme was subsequently, formally introduced on 1st August, 1995 and implemented in 1st September, 1995.

The Petitioner having meanwhile, addressed a legal notice to the UGC and the Registrar of T.I.F.R., where he was formerly employed, T.I.F.R. rejected the Petitioner''s claim citing the fact that pensionary benefits are within the discretion of WRIC. It is contended that the Petitioner who is a former Director of WRIC was aware of the fact that the pensionary benefits would not be applicable to him and on his superannuation on 31st July, 1992 he availed only CPF, gratuity and leave encashment. It is contended that the Petitioner could not claim such pension benefits under the 1995 scheme as of right.

In the case of D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), , the Apex Court made a distinction between liberalization of the existing benefits and introduction of a new scheme. The WRIC scheme introduced by WRIC was a new scheme and it is not as if the Petitioner was denied the existing benefits under a modified/liberalized scheme at the time of his superannuation. Admittedly, the Petitioner has received the payments he was entitled as and by way of the provident fund dues including the amount of WRIC contribution and had availed the same as part of his entitlement. The relationship between the Petitioner and the WRIC came to an end on his superannuation. The WRIC scheme implemented with effect from 1st September, 1995 was brought into force from 1st August, 1995 and clause 4 specified that "present employees" of WRIC were to exercise their option for either CPF or Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme. It is also specified in clause 4 of the said scheme that the persons joining the WRIC after the introduction of this scheme can only avail the Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme. A cutoff date was thus recorded by the scheme. The issue of fixation of cutoff date came up for consideration in the case of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others Vs. Union of India and others, , wherein it is held that fixation of cut-off date satisfied the test of classification. The distinction has to be drawn between continuance of an existing scheme in its liberalized form and introduction of a wholly new scheme and in the case of a new scheme the retired employees have no vested right and the employer can restrict applicability of the scheme.

In the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and Others, , the Supreme Court once again held that fixation of cut-off date could not be said to be arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Petitioner''s challenge to the non payment of pension as demanded is based on the introduction of "dual system" of pension for present employees and contributory provident fund scheme for the Petitioner, which he claims inter alia penalised the Petitioner for his dedicated service to the nation by accepting the assignment to establish WRIC for improving science education. The Petitioner contends that had he continued his work with TIFR, he would have been entitled for the pension. The Petitioner contends that every employee of the University of Bombay and UGC and every education institute funded by the State Government or Central Government is entitled to pension. That the Petitioner is entitled to pension despite the fact that UGC funds WRIC and although the Petitioner is not an employee of the University of Mumbai. He challenges two different set of rules, one in respect of the employees whose salaries are funded by the State Government and others whose salaries are funded by UGC as being discriminatory. He contends that the classification sought to be made in the WRIC scheme is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires of the Constitution of India.

It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had already availed the benefits of the provident fund benefits in July, 1992, three years prior to the effect date of the WRIC scheme. The Petitioner cannot therefore claim the benefit of the said scheme. The scheme for WRIC was separately established and implemented and as such, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was deprived of the pensionary benefits by discriminatory action of the Respondents.

In the circumstances, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.