CWP No.5681 of 2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 5681 of 2000 Date of Decision: 26 - 7 - 2010 Bal Kishan ....Petitioner v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Hundal, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Gagan Mohini, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Mr.Rajiv Kwatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondents No.4 and 5. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, it has been prayed that vide order dated 19.7.1999, Annexure P11, passed by the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra – respondent No.1 (hereinafter to be referred as, `respondent No.1') whereby a sum of Rs.31,520/- on account of gratuity was retained, be quashed as the same is in violation of the decision dated 18.5.1974, Annexure P1, arrived at between the Vice Chancellors of Panjab University, CWP No.5681 of 2000 [2] Chandigarh and Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. It has been further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing respondent No.1 to count for the purpose of gratuity the service rendered by the petitioner in Panjab University from 19.3.1957 to 30.6.1974, prior to taking over the administrative control of Post Graduate Regional Centre, Rohtak (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Centre') by respondent No.1. For claiming the reliefs raised in the present writ petition, the petitioner has heavily relied upon a letter, Annexure P12, issued by the Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh to the Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra vide memo No.18/44-2001 UNP(I) dated 6.6.2002. Annexure P12 forms part of order dated 8.5.2008 passed in this writ petition by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which reads as under:- “Vide order dated 14.11.2007, respondent no.1 University was directed to decide the claim of the petitioner and file a report before this Court within 4 weeks. The report/affidavit filed by the Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra indicates that since a number of employees who retired from Kurukshetra University were facing similar problems as the petitioners and a number of petitions have been filed, the University had suggested to Government of Haryana that the pension rule may be amended in favour of the retired employees but the Government of Haryana had not agreed to it. A similar request has again been made to the Government and the matter is yet to be decided. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed CWP No.5681 of 2000 [3] out that the affidavit filed by the Registrar is totally misleading and is not based on facts. In this regard, reference has been made to Annexure P-12 filed with C.M.No.18386 of 2006 wherein following is contained:- “Subject: Clarification regarding counting of previous service/foreign service towards pension. Kindly refer to the subject noted above. (i) The advice issued vide letter No.18/44-2001 UNP (1) dated 24.12.2001 was in respect of service rendered by the employees of Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Punjab University. It is as well known that initially it was Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and what was a regional centre of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra earlier. Similarly, the employees also rendered service in the Punjab University and were subsequently allocated to Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and then allocated to Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. That being the situation the advice was with regard to the service which the employees had rendered initially in the Punjab University followed by the Kuruskehtra University, Kurukshetra and followed by Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. This pattern follows in the same manner as the employees of the joining Punjab were allocated to the Haryana Govt. at the time of the creation of the Haryana State. Hence, the service rendered by these employees who continued to remain in situ but there was a change of employer on account of division of jurisdiction after a period of time. In their case, the previous service rendered was agreed to by countable for the purpose of pension in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. (ii) To the extent the employees of Kurukshetra CWP No.5681 of 2000 [4] University, Kurukshetra fall in the same category, their service may also be counted for the purpose of pension at the time of retirement from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in letter dated 24.12.2001 (copy enclosed) in respect of Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. (iii) As regards service rendered by the employees elsewhere such as Central Govt./State Govt./Autonomous body, the same is not countable for the purposes of pensionary benefits, they should be advised to first consider amendment in their pension scheme for which a separate self-contained proposal should be submitted for approval of the State Govt.” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also pointed out that in the matter of gratuity, the Panjab university and Kurukshetra University are already sharing the burden of the service rendered by an employee in the two different universities. In this regard, reference has been made to Annexure P-1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State states that copy of the application or Annexure P-12 is not available with them. Copy has been supplied in Court. Adjourned to 14.07.2008. It is directed that the respondents including the State should take clear instructions in regard to the claim of the petitioner.” Today also the respondents have expressed their helplessness and have prayed for an adjournment. In view of long pendency of this writ petition, this Court proceeds to decide it. Therefore, it is necessary to give CWP No.5681 of 2000 [5] brief resume of the facts: Initially, the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Panjab University, Chandigarh – respondent No.3 (hereinafter to be referred as, `respondent No.3) on 19.3.1957. In the year 1970, he was transferred to the Centre. At that time, the Centre was under the control of respondent No.3. In April, 1973, the petitioner was promoted as an Assistant. The administrative control of the Centre, where the petitioner was working as an Assistant, was taken over by respondent No.1 from respondent No.3. A meeting in the presence of Chancellor Shri B.N.Chakravarty, who was the then Governor of Haryana, was held between the Vice Chancellors, of respondents No.1 and 3 – Universities and they arrived at a memorandum of understanding. The same has been annexed as Annexure P1 and relevant portion thereof reads as under:- 2.(i) In regard to the Punjab University Post-graduate Regional Centre, the Punjab University Evening College at Rohtak and the Post-graduate Centre at Ambala, both the teaching and the non-teaching staff will be taken over by the Kurukshetra University, but will be either according to the Punjab University rules or to the Kurukshetra University rules according to their option.” It is not disputed that after the Centre was taken over by respondent No.1, the petitioner continued to serve there. Respondent No.1 framed a scheme known as Kurukshetra University Employees Pension Scheme, 1997, which came into force with effect from 1.4.1995. Petitioner retired from service on 31.1.1996. He had given an option for the Employees Pension Scheme. A perusal of Annexure P11 reveals that on CWP No.5681 of 2000 [6] 19.7.1999, Pension Payment Order No.143 was released in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner had retired as a Superintendent. In view of the fact that when the Centre was taken over by respondent No.1, the employees of that Centre were to be governed by the rules framed by respondent No.1, for all intents and purposes, they became employees of respondent No.1. Annexure P12 makes it explicit clear that benefit of past service has to accrue to the employees who became employees of respondent No.1 as the Centre was taken over by respondent No.1. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to count the service rendered by the petitioner from 19.3.1957 to 30.6.1974 for grant of pension when the Centre was taken over by respondent No.1 and the amount of gratuity retained by respondent No.1 shall also be released to the petitioner. The needful shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) July 26, 2010. JUDGE RC