Vishwavidhayalaya Pensioners Association & Another vs B.R. Naidu & Others

Alleging willful disobedience of order dated 26/07/2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 5399/2005, the petitioners have filed this contempt case.

The order passed in said writ petition was in the following terms:-

“The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 09-05-2005 (Annexure P/1) and 1910-2005 (Annexure P/1-A)

issued by respondent No.2.

Petitioners are seeking quashment of the said orders with a direction to the respondents to continue to make payment of pension to the petitioners

without any delay.

The main contention of the petitioners is that they are retired teaching staff/employees of respondent No.3 University and they are entitled to get the

same pension as the State Government teaching staff/employees are receiving.

At the commencement of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance over the order dated 03-02-2015 passed by the Indore

Bench in Writ Petition No.12169/2013 (S) whereby the similarly situated person (professor of Vikram University, Ujjain) has been granted the same

pensionary benefit in view of the notification dated 03-082009 issued by the State Government.

According to the counsel for the petitioners, facts of the said case are identical to the facts contained in the present writ petition. The said order has

been confirmed by the Division Bench in writ appeal and subsequently before the Supreme Court. Counsel for respondent No.3 University agreed in

affirmative and submitted that the case of the petitioners of writ petition No.12169/2013(S) is identical.

On the other hand, counsel for respondents/State could not distinguish the facts of the said case vis a vis the facts of the present case and could not

dispute passing of order dated 03-02-2015 in W.P.No.12169/2013 (S).

Thus, the present petition is disposed of in the same terms and similar directions issued in the said writ petition.

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to extend all the pensionary benefits to the petitioners in view of the

notification dated 03-08-2009. Exercise of grant of pension, arrears of pension and other benefits by issuing revised Pension Payment Order be

completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Evidently, the petitioners had filed the writ petition whereby they sought quashment of communication dated 09/05/2005 by Commissioner, Higher

Education, addressed to all the Registrars of the Universities in the State of Madhya Pradesh, relating to updating and up-funding of the contribution by

the Universities under the Contributory Provident Fund to be deposited in the pension fund.

Learned Single Judge, on the basis of certain decision by the Co-ordinate Bench at Indore and taking into consideration that the matter since relates to

pension of the University retirees, disposed of the petition with the direction to the State to consider the claim of respective pensioners and finalize the

same as per notification dated 03/08/2009.

The notification which was adverted to was a Pension Revision Order, 2009, issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh laying down the parameters as to

how the pension of post and pre 01/01/2006 retirees was to be determined.

The notices were issued in the present contempt case to the respondents whereon after due deliberations, the State Government has filed the

compliance report on 18/06/2018, where in paragraph No. 3, it is stated:-

“3. That, in compliance of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court, respondent authorities have made payments after calculating the entire amount

to be paid to the 93 pensioners, out of which payments to 7 pensioners were already made and for remaining 86 pensioners amount has been

calculated and paid to them. Copy of letter dated 13.6.2018 giving information with respect to above proceedings is filed herewith and marked as

Annexure C/1.â€​

An objection is raised on behalf of the petitioners stating therein that the State of Madhya Pradesh has not fully complied the order passed in the Writ

Petition stating therein that there are 127 members of the petitioners' association who retired prior to 01/01/2006 and 119 members who retired after

01/01/2006. It is stated that all the pensioners are not paid the entire pension nor have been paid the arrears arising from the recommendations of the

Sixth Pay Commission. It is urged that 127 pensioners, retired prior to 01/01/2006, are not given the benefit of Sixth Pay Commission, nor are being

benefited by dearness relief increased from time to time.

It is further contended that 119 persons retired after 01/01/2006 of whom only 93 retirees are benefited from revised pension. It is urged that even

pensioners who have attained the age of 80 years and 85 years are also not benefited from Pension Revision Rules, 2009.

On these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed in writ petition has not been complied with in letter and spirit.

Considered the rival contentions.

The compliance report reflects that substantial compliance of the order dated 26/07/2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 5399/2005 has been effected by

the State and its functionaries.

In compliance report filed on 16/04/2018, it is stated in paragraph No. 3 that in compliance of the order passed in writ petition, the respondents/

authorities have got sanction from the Finance Department and after receiving the permission from the Finance Department, an order has been passed

on 13/11/2017 stating therein that:-

“jkT; deZpkfj;ksa ds leku fo'ofo|ky; isa'kulZ dks fnukad 1-1-2006 ds iwoZ lsokfuo`Rr isa'ku Hkksfx;ksa@ifjokj isa'ku Hkksfx;ksa dh isa'ku@ ifjokj

isa'kuy dk lesdu ,oa Hkqxrku e/;izns'k 'kklu foRr foHkkx ds vkns'k Øekad ,Q 9@2@2009@fu;e pkj@¼Hkkx&1½ fnukad 3-8-2009 ds vuqlkj fd;k

tk;s rFkk fnukad 1-1-2006 dks ;k mlds i'pkr lsokfuo`r@ fnoaxr deZpkfj;ksa dh iqujhf{kr isa'ku@ifjokj isa'ku ds ,fj;lZ dk Hkqxrku e/;izns'k 'kklu foRr

foHkkx ds vkns'k ,Q 9@2@2009@ fu;e pkj@¼Hkkx&1½ fnukad 09-03-2010 ds rgr fd;ktkos ,oale; le; ij mijksDr laca/k esa tkjh foRr foHkkx ds

funsZ'kksa dk ikyu fd;k tkosAâ€​

It is further submitted that the Pension Payment Orders were issued in consonance therewith. The copy of order dated 13/11/2017 is brought on

record as Annexure C-1 to substantiate the contentions.

In compliance report filed on 18/06/2018, it is stated that the payment of entire amount has been calculated in favour of the 93 pensioners, out of

which payment to 7 pensioners have already been made and for remaining 86 pensioners amount has been calculated and paid to them.

That a communication dated 13/06/2018 has also been filed by the functionaries of the State

Government stating therein:-

“ dk;kZy; vk;qDr mPp f'k{kk] e/;izns'k   lriqM+k Hkou] Hkksiky&462004

Øekad 642@vkmf'k@fo-fo-isa'ku@18 Hkksiky] fnukad

13-6-2018

izfr]

vfrfjDr lapkyd] mPp f'k{kk] {kS=h; dk;kZy;]

Xokfy;j&pEcy laHkkx] Xokfy;j ¼e-iz-½ fo""k;%& voekuuk izdj.k Øekad 379@2017] thokth fo'ofo|ky;] Xokfy;j is'kulZ ,lksf'k,'ku] fo:) vij eq[;lfpo]

mPpf'k{kk ,oa vU;A

lUnHkZ%& vkidk i= dzekad 1802@{ks-dk-@m-f'k@U;k@2018] fnukad 18-5-2018 ,oa layXu dk;kZy; egkf/koDrk e-iz- mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB]

Xokfy;j ls izkIr i=

&&&&&

mijksDr fo""k;kUrxZr lanfHkZr i= ds laca/k esa ikyu izfrosnu gsrq thokth fo'ofo|ky;] Xokfy;j dh tkudkjh fuEukuqlkj gS%&

1& fnukad 1-1-2006 ds iwoZ lsokfuo`Rr isa'kujksa dks ikapos osrueku esa izkIr isa'ku dk fu;ekuqlkj Nbosa osrueku esa lesfdr dj dqy 112 isa'kujksa

dks Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gSA

2& fnukad 1-1-2006 ds i'pkr lsokfuo`Rr lsodks dh fo'ofo|ky; ls izkIr lwph vuqlkj dqy 93 isa'kujksa ds isa'ku dk NBosa osrueku esa iqujhf{kr djus gsrq

izkIr gq;s FksA fdUrq mDr 93 izdj.kksa esa ls 07 ,sls izdj.k Fks ftudk iwoZ esa gh NBosa osrueku esa isa'ku dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk pqdk Fkk ,oa cSad

}kjk fu;fer isa'ku izkIr dj jgs gSA 'ks""k 86 isa'ku izdj.kksa dk Nbosa osrueku esa iqujhf{kr dj iqujhf{kr vkns'k tkjh fd, x,A izR;sd izdj.k esa isa'ku dk

Hkqxrku cSad }kjk fd;k tk pqdk gSA bl izdkj 86 izdj.k esa cSad }kjk isa'kujksa dks ,fj;j dh dqy jkf'k :i;s 2]05]90]620@& ¼:i;s nks djksM ikap yk[k

uCcs gtkj NS% lkS chl ek=½ dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk pqdk gSA

3- e-iz- 'kklu mPp f'k{kk foHkkx ds vkns'k dzekad ,Q&18&2@2017@38&3] fnukad 13-11-2017 ds vuqdze esa dafMdk dzekad 2-1Â vuqlkj fnukad

1-1-2006 ls fnukad 31-3-2014 rd dh vof/k dk Hkqxrku fo'ofo|ky; }kjk fd;k tkuk FkkA fdUrq fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Hkqxrku u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k 'kklu }kjk

fo'ofo|ky; dks ns; Cykd xzkaV ls dze'k% jkf'k :- 86]94]000@&] :i;s 28]98]000@& rFkk :i;s 1]01]43]000@& dqy jkf'k :i;s 2]17]35]000@& ¼:i;s nks

djksM l=kg yk[k iSarhl gtkj ek=½ dkVdj mDr isa'kujks ds ,fj;lZ fnukad 1-1-2006 ls 31-3-2014 rd dh vof/k dk Hkqxrku jkf'k dqy 2]05]90]620@&

¼:i;s nks djksM ikap yk[k uCcs gtkj NS% lkS chl ek=½ fd;k tk pqdk gSA rFkk bl dk;kZy; ds i= dzekad 598@414@vkmf'k@fo-fo-isa-@18]

fnukad 28-5-18 }kjk orZeku esa NBosa osrueku ds rgr iqujhf{kr dh xbZ isa'ku ds isa'ku vkns'k vuqlkj fnukad 1-4-2018 ls ¼vizSy 2018 isM bu ebZ

2018½ ds ekg ls leLr isa'kujksa dks fu;fer Hkqxrku djus ds funsZ'k cSad dks fn;s tk pqds gSA

vr,o ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] [k.MihB]

Xokfy;j ds vkns'kkuqlkj mijksDrkuqlkj isa'ku iqujh{k.k dh dk;Zokgh dj leLr iqujhf{kr isa'ku izdj.kksa dk fujkdj.k dj cSad }kjk Hkqxrku fd;k tk pqdk gSA

U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkFkZ izfrosnu izLrqr gSA vr% U;k;ky;hu izdj.k izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij lekIr ;ksX; gSA

vij lapkyd ¼foRr½

mPp f'k{kk] e/;izns'kâ€​

Evident it is from these facts brought on record by respondents supported by an affidavit that there is substantial compliance of the order passed in

writ petition. However, it also appears that some of the retirees are yet to receive the revised pension and arrears in pursuance of the order passed in

writ petition.

In view whereof, instead of further proceeding in the matter, the contempt petition is dropped with a direction to respondents to extend the benefits in

pursuance to the Pension Revision Order, 2009, to all pre and post 01/01/2006 retirees within a period of 03 months from the date of communication of

this order.

In case, any of the retirees have any grievance qua non settlement of the pensionary dues, the individuals are at liberty to take recourse to law.

With these observations, contempt proceedings are dropped. Rule Nisi discharged.