Sh. Krishan Chandra Bishnoi and another vs Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others

K. Kannan, J.—The writ petition has been filed in the names of Krishan Chandra Bishnoi and Dr. D.N. Srivastava as petitioners. The entire body of the petition refers only to 1st petitioner and even the order, which is impugned in the writ petition, which is passed by the Haryana Agricultural University on 26.10.2002 refers only to the name of Dr. Bishnoi. It is not seen as to how the 2nd petitioner has also been made as party. The disposal of the case, therefore, only concerns the claim of the 1st petitioner. The petitioner, who was retiree from the Department of Haryana Agriculture University seeks for consideration of redressal by counting the period of service in Rajasthan University. The petitioner''s claim is made on the basis of what is contained in Chapter VIIIA Clause 3.2, reproduced as 3.3 (i) and (ii) in the impugned order. The same is reproduced here as well, for that would give the basis for his claim that he was entitled to count the number of years of service in the previous employment as well :-

3.3(i) The existing employee who has served the Central Govt. or any autonomous body established under the Central/State law, has been absorbed in the Haryana Agriculture University service in the public interest or who has come over/ joined the University service after rendering service in the Central/State Govt., Autonomous Body can get his past service counted towards pension if he refunds the terminal retirement benefit received, if any, by him from such Govt./Autonomous Body for the service rendered there, to this University along with interest thereon at the rates applicable on CPF/GPF accumulation from the date of receipt of these benefits till the date of deposit with the University.

3.3(H) An employee who has retired during the period from introduction of pension to the date of notification of the statutes and is in receipt of pension etc. from his previous employer and opts to get his past service counted towards pension to the University shall have to refund the amount equal to the terminal retirement benefits received by him till retirement from the University along with interest at the rate applicable on CPF/GPF accumulation from the date of receipt of benefits till the date of deposit with the University and then his past service shall be counted towards pension.

Note:- These provisions are applicable to the employees who were in service on 07.02.1986 irrespective of the date of their absorption. In respect of cases falling under Clause 3.3, the concerned employee shall have to give an application for the purpose of getting his past service counted towards pension within four months from the date of issue of notification of these statutes along with Bank Draft of the required amount in lumpsum, falling which his past service shall not be counted for pensionary benefits. However, the future entrants who join service in HAU after serving in Central/any other State Govt. or any Autonomous Body established under the Central/State Law shall have to give an application within four months of their joining in the University for getting their past service counted towards pension and they shall have to refund to the University the terminal retirement benefits such as pension, gratuity, CPF etc. received by them from the previous employer for the service rendered there to this University along with interest thereon at the rates applicable on CPF/GPF accumulations fixed from time to time by the University, from the date of receipt of these benefits till the date of deposit with the University and shall have to attach along with their application for Bank Draft for the required amount in lumpsum, failing which their past service shall not be counted for pensionary benefits. Where no terminal benefits for previous service have been received, the previous service in such cases will be counted as qualifying service for pension only if the previous employer accepts pension liability for the service including upto date interest thereon at the rates applicable on CPF/GPF accumulations fixed by the University from time to time. In no case pension contribution/CPF contribution shall be accepted from the employees concerned. However, the interest if not allowed by the previous employer, can be deposited by the employee concerned himself. Benefit of past service shall not be allowed without deposit of interest on terminal benefits.

The petitioner had been appointed as a Research Assistant in the Department of Agriculture University, Rajasthan on 04.08.1966 and served till 22.10.1970. He had submitted his resignation to the Director, Agriculture University on joining as an Assistant Professor in the Agriculture University at Hisar on 23.10.1970. He retired on 30.09.2011 on his attaining the age of superannuation. During his period of service with the University, the pension scheme was notified when the University had called upon the employees on 26.02.1999 to opt for pension in the place of Contributory Provident Fund. The petitioner had exercised his option in March, 1999 and during his service, he had also submitted his papers for pensionary benefit before his retirement as admissible under Rule 3.2 of the Pension Rules.

Before his retirement, the State of Haryana had issued instructions regarding weightage to be given to classes of persons, who were in service, that required Postgraduate Research or specialized qualification or experience in scientific technological or professional fields and to which candidates of more than 25 years of age were normally recruited. The Government clarified that the corresponding Rule 4.2A of the CSR Vol. 2 was applicable and the weightage will have to be given only in terms of what was provided under Rule 4.2. The relevant provision under Rule 4.2 is reproduced for consideration to appreciate the extent of difference, which this rule envisages:-

An officer appointed to a service or post may add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeds twenty five years or a period of five years, whichever is least, if the service or post is one-

(a) for which post-graduate research or specialist qualification, or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields is essential; and

(b) to which candidates of more than twenty five years of age are normally recruited;

Provided that this concession shall not be admissible to any such officer unless his actual qualifying service at the time he quits Government service is not less than ten years.

Provided further that any such officer who is recruited at the age of thirty five years or more may, within a period of three months, from the date of his appointment, elect to forego his rights to pensions whereupon he shall be eligible to subscribe to a Contributory Provident Fund.

Note-1. The option once exercise shall be final.

Note-2. The decision to grant the concession under this rule shall be taken by the Administrative Department at the time of recruitment in consultation with the Finance Department and the Public Service Commission.

The consultation with the Public Service Commission will be restricted to those posts only which fall within their purview.

The petitioner''s claim for pension in the manner provided under the statute was deferred to await consideration of whether the State instructions were applicable to the University since the Government instruction had come about prior to the petitioner''s retirement. The said Instructions were applied and a weightage as provided in Rule 4.2 was given to the petitioner by counting an additional period of six months. The pension already fixed was Rs. 9259/- and it was refixed at Rs. 9411/- and an order had been made effective on 19.03.2003.

The petitioner is aggrieved at the decision of the respondent in admitting merely the claim as per the Government instructions and he would contend that the State instructions were not applicable to the University and no decision has been taken by the Senate of the University. However, this is denied by the respondent and would contend that in terms of Clause 1.7 of Chapter VIIIA of the statute all the matters pertaining to the grant of pension to the retirees of the University could be regulated in accordance with the corresponding provisions of the Punjab CSR Vol. 2 as applicable to the Haryana Government. The said clause is also reproduced hereunder:-

All matters pertaining to the grant of pension to the retirees of the University (except those which have been specifically provided for in the pension statutes) would be regulated in accordance with the corresponding provisions of Punjab CSR Vol. II as applicable to Haryana Govt. employees as amended from time to time or as modified by the Board of Management consistent with the provisions of the Act or keeping in view the activities/character of the University.

It is, therefore, contended that the State instructions alone would apply and since the instructions were extended even before the petitioner''s superannuation, the State instructions as regards the superannuation pension in the manner provided under Rule 4.2A of the Punjab Civil Service Rule Vol. 11 alone was applicable. The respondent would also contend that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact that the petitioner had come by a benefit by application of weightage in the manner provided under these instructions.

On the mere examination of the Government instructions and particularly with reference to the application for incorporation of the Government instructions regarding pension to the employees of the University in terms of Clause 1.7 of the statute, there is no escape from the provision that the petitioner cannot seek for consideration of his claim for pension as per the Clause 3.2 (3.3 ?). However, the petitioner points out to the fact that there are two other persons who had been given the benefit of past service in employment elsewhere in terms of Clause 3.2 and cites the instance of Dr. M.C. Goyal, who was working in the Department of Microbiology and who had retired on 30.06.2001 and Dr. Harbir Singh, Professor of the Agronomy Department, who had retired in January 2007 and who had been given the order of benefit under Clause 3.2. Adverting to these contentions, the respondents would reply that the benefit of service under Clause 3.2 had been given to Dr. Goyal much before the instructions dated 5.3.2001 since he had retired earlier. Dr. Goyal was not entitled to benefit of Clause 3.2, he having joined the University service initially on Class I post and therefore, the orders issued in that regard had been kept in abeyance till the final decision of the State Government. He was not subsequently allowed the benefit. This reply by the State has not been contested by the petitioner by means of any replication. Citing the instance of Dr. Harbir Singh, it is stated that his case was also considered as per the instructions dated 5.3.2001.

I find that the petitioner''s claim has been considered properly under the relevant Rules and the order passed, which is impugned in the writ petition is well reasoned and gives out a proper justification as to how the Government instructions were liable to be followed by the University on account of its binding nature in terms of the provisions in the Statute of University themselves. I do not find, therefore, that there is any scope for accepting the challenge to the impugned order and the writ petition is consequently dismissed.