HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5094/2008 Date of Decision: April 28, 2010 Dr. Chand Sunil Nagpal ……. Petitioner Versus H.P. University through its Registrar …….. Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Yudhbir Singh vice Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Economics) with the respondent-University in September, 1984. He applied for grant of extraordinary leave for joining the post of Reader in Punjabi University, Patiala. No objection with regard to the same was issued by the respondent-University and the extraordinary leave for two years was also granted to him. With the expiry of the said period, petitioner applied for further leave which was turned down. Consequently, he submitted his resignation which was to be w.e.f. 14.9.1986. By this time, he had been confirmed as a Reader in the Punjabi University, Patiala. His resignation was accepted. 2. On 20.5.1995, the respondent-University issued notification which reads as under:- “In continuation of this office notification No.3-1/76-HPU(Genl)Vol- VI dated the 13th March, 1992, it is hereby notified that having received Hon’ble Chancellor’s clearance in the matter as per 2 Chancellor’s office communication No.4-36/75-GS-IV, dated the 9th May, 1995, the University employees (including the teachers) will now be given a chance to exercise option to come over to the GPF- cum-Pension-Gratuity Scheme from C.P.F.-cum-Gratuity Scheme. All the employees, who are interested, may, therefore, exercise fresh option to the Dy. Registrar (Estt.) on the prescribed proforma available with him, in this behalf within three months from the date of issue of this notification. The option now exercised shall be final.” 3. That the benefits of the Scheme were to be given retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.1986 is not in dispute. On 2.11.1996, petitioner also exercised his option under the Scheme. He opted for the GPF-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme instead of C.P.F.-cum-Gratuity Scheme. However, his request was rejected in terms of letter dated 22.8.1997 which reads as under:- “To Dr. C.S. Nagpal, Professor of Economics, Punjabi University, Regional Centre Bathinda (Punjab) Subject: Retirement benefits and option for pension. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter dated 4.12.1996 on the above cited subject and to state that the matter has been examined and it has been found that the Executive Council’s decision speaks about the retirees/legal heirs of the deceased retirees and legal heirs of those who died in harness to exercise fresh options. The incumbents who joined other organizations and were paid C.P.F. benefits can get their past service counted for retirement benefits in their present organizations according to rules and regulations in force there only. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (S.C. Dohroo) Deputy Registrar (Estt.)” 3 4. His representation to the Chancellor also stands summarily dismissed. Consequently the present petition. 5. The respondent has opposed the petition on the ground that even though petitioner’s resignation was accepted with effect from the forenoon of 14.9.1986 but however it dates back to 12.9.1984. Undisputedly this fact was not communicated to the petitioner. As on 1.1.1986 petitioner was on the roles of the respondent-University. His resignation was accepted to be effective only from 14.9.1986. Consequently, the respondent-University has wrongly denied the benefits of the Scheme to the petitioner. 6. Otherwise, nothing has been placed on record to show his ineligibility to the entitlement of the benefits under the Scheme. In fact the stand taken by the respondent-University in its letter dated 22.8.1997 (Annexure A-7), is totally different from the one taken in the return filed before this Court. 7. The orders passed by the respondent-University and more particularly Annexure A-7 are quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits in accordance with the Scheme and the notification issued by the Government. Necessary consequential action be taken by the respondent- University within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. April 28, 2010 (rana)