THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO W.A.Nos.171 of 2006 and 1573, 1574, 1611, 1930, 1936 & 1702 of 2004 And W.P.Nos.15148 of 2005 & 24794 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J) This Batch of Writ Appeals is filed against various orders passed in W.P.No.15539 of 2002 and batch. While some writ appeals are filed by the Andhra University, others are filed by the Union of India. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.15539 of 2002 and batch. The Union of India i.e., 3rd respondent intended to establish Agro-Economic Research Centres at various places in the Country. Since the establishment of Centres was found to be proper in the University campuses, a scheme was evolved, whereunder the Centres would be established in the identified Universities as planned, and the funds would be made available to the Universities by the Government. It is in this context, that a standard Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) dated 23.01.1995 was entered into. One of the Centres was established in the Andhra University i.e., 2nd respondent with 18 employees. Out of them, 14 retired from service. Their grievance was that though MOU provided for payment of pension and other retirement benefits, they were not extended the same. Accordingly, they approached this Court by filing the writ petitions. The 2nd respondent-University on its part did not deny the entitlement of the petitioners to be paid pension. However, it was stated that pension can be paid by them, if only the corresponding funds are made available by the 3rd respondent. The stand of the 3rd respondent was that the pension is not a condition of service of the employees, who retired from the Centres, and the other benefits such as provident fund were extended to them. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, taking the view that the MOU provides for the similarity of service conditions between the employees of the Centre on the one hand and the employees of the University on the other hand, and since the employees of the University are paid pension, the employees of the Centre are also entitled to it. As regards the obligation to pay, the learned Single Jude directed that the 2nd respondent- University shall first pay the pension, to the retired employees and the same shall be reimbursed by the 3rd respondent. It is in this background that the writ appeals are filed by the 2nd respondent-University on the one hand and the 3rd respondent, on the other hand. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. The circumstances, under which the 3rd respondent established its centres in the Universities has been briefly indicated in the preceding paragraphs. Obviously because it would be difficult to have a separate establishment for the Agro Economic Research Centres, which are not full-fledged institutions, it was proposed to have them as part of the University establishments. The only difference was that the programmes would be fixed and determined by the 3rd respondent and the entire financing shall be made by them. Realising that the service conditions in various universities are bound to be different, a clause was incorporated in the MOU, to the effect that the service conditions prevalent in the Universities shall apply to the employees of the research centers in all respects. Clauses (ix) and (xii) of the MOU read as under: (ix) The staff of the Centre would be considered at part with the regular employees of the University for all the privileges enjoyed by the regular staff of the University, i.e., pension, Gratuity, Provident Fund, allotment of quarters as per the existing rules. Medical benefits all other benefits etc. as applicable to the staff of the University. They will also be considered for such advances and loans as may be extended by the University to its staff. (xii) Future revisions in the scales of pay and allowances in the posts in the centre will be as per provisions effective for similar posts in the University. Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the MOU deal with the determination of the programmes as well as funding. They read: (ii) The annual programme of work for such centre will be drawn up and approved by the Ministry and should not be altered without the prior approval of the Ministry. The research studies should be completed within the time limits approved by the Ministry. Extension of time limit would be accorded by the Ministry considering the circumstances of each study. The centre may undertake Research studies for the State Government and other agencies also. However the research studies allotted by the Ministry would get priority over other studies. If the ministry, at any point of time has reason to believe that the studies allotted by the Ministry are getting delayed on account of the studies taken up for the State Government and other agencies. The Ministry may withheld the release of the grants to the centre. (iii) The Ministry will release the Grants-in-aid according to the approved budget provisions every year. The powers of drawing an disbursing authority will rest with the University which will keep a separate account for the centre. Periodical expenditure statement in the prescribed format will be furnished to the Ministry of Agriculture. Annual audited statement of accounts along with the utilisation certification will be furnished by the centre to the Ministry by 30th September every year for the previous year ending 31st March. From a perusal of the Clauses extracted above, it becomes clear that (a) the service conditions prevailing in the University were made applicable to the employees of the Research Centers in their entirety; and (b) the 3rd respondent has undertaken the responsibility to meet the entire expenditure, including the emoluments for the staff. It is not in dispute that the service of the employees in the 2nd respondent-University is pensionable. Therefore, the employees of the center who have retired from service are also entitled to be paid pension. Naturally, the allocation must be made by the 3rd respondent as provide for under Clause (iii) of the MOU. The contention advanced by the 3rd respondent that the service conditions of its employees are somewhat different, cannot at all be accepted, in view of Clause (ix) of the MOU. The 2nd respondent-University cannot be compelled to pay the pension or other benefits, unless they are arranged by the 3rd respondent. Identical issue arose before the Allahabad High Court. The writ petitions were allowed and the 3rd respondent was directed to meet the expenditure for payment of pension of the employees on par with the employees of the concerned university. Learned Single Judge followed the same and allowed the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-University is not able to point out any factual or legal error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. W.P.Nos.15148 of 2005 and 24794 of 2007 are similar to the writ petitions, out of which the present batch of writ appeals has arisen. We therefore dismiss the writ appeals and allow the writ petitions. It is however directed that it shall be open to the 2nd respondent-University to submit advance budget making provision for payment of pension and the 3rd respondent shall release the same after due verification. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ appeals and writ petitions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J ______________________ B.SIVA SANKARA RAO. J Date: 17.11.2014 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO W.A.Nos.171 of 2006 and 1573, 1574, 1611, 1930, 1936 & 1702 of 2004 And W.P.Nos.15148 of 2005 & 24794 of 2007 Date: 17.11.2014 JSU