LPA No.101 of 2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.101 of 2008. Date of Decision: 1.7.2008. H.L.Goyal ............. Appellant through Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus C.C.S.H.A.U.Hissar & Others. ..............Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? . ***** Vijender Jain,Chief Justice This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgement dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned single Judge vide which the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was allowed, however, interest on a sum of Rs.76,000/- (additional amount), illegally retained for more than seven years by the C.C.S. Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar (hereinafter referred to as the respondent- University), has been denied to him, if the amount is returned within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by the learned single Judge. Broadly stated the facts are that the appellant-petitioner before joining the respondent-University on 13.10.1970 had been employed in LPA No.101 of 2008. 2 Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra for the period from 17.7.1963 to 12.10.1970. He retired from the respondent-University on 31.7.1997 as Associate Professor (Athletics). In the year 1994 he applied to the respondent-University for counting his past service rendered by him in Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra for the purpose of pension and gratuity as per Clause 3.3 and 3.4 of the Pension Statute applicable to the respondent-University. He was required to pay the terminal benefits drawn by him from Kurukshetra University alongwith 6% simple interest as per rules prevailing at that time, which he duly deposited on 7.12.1995 and the respondent-University vide its memo dated 15.4.1996 (Annexure P-4) conveyed the counting of his past service. Thereafter, it was conveyed to him that the Board of Management vide notification dated 11.8.1997 (Annexure P-3) had substituted the rate of interest payable from 6% simple to the rates as applicable on CPG/GPF accumulation fixed by the respondent-University from time to time and the employees who deposited the terminal benefits drawn by them from the previous employers after 25.8.1994 were required to deposit the same alongwith interest on GPF rates. Against this demand petitioner filed representation/statutory appeal which were declined. Ultimately, petitioner filed CWP No. 3442 of 1999 which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to respondent- University to decide the statutory appeal of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of orders of this Court. Since the respondent-University decided the appeal insisting upon the appellant- petitioner to deposit the additional amount of Rs.76,000/- already demanded from him, he filed CWP No. 8968 of 1999 challenging the demand of said additional amount. During the pendency of the said writ LPA No.101 of 2008. 3 petition, in compliance with the directions of this Court, the petitioner deposited Rs.76,000/- with the respondent-University. In the written statement it was stated by the respondent-University that Government of Haryana vide its instructions dated 22.8.1988 had adopted the instructions dated 29.8.1984 issued by the Government of India regarding counting of past service rendered by the employees for counting towards pension provided they refunded terminal benefits with interest. The same had been adopted by the respondent-University on 9.4.1993 and accordingly corresponding provision was made in the Pension Statute of the respondent-University for deposit of the terminal benefits with 6% simple interest, as was being followed by the Central Government for its employees. The Government of India vide their notification dated 25.8.1994 substituted the rate of interest on retiral benefits to be deposited from 6% simple to the rates as applicable on GPF/CPF accumulations from time to time and since the scheme of Central Government/ Haryana Government was adopted as a whole, amendments in the basic scheme were also to be made applicable by the respondent-University and therefore, vide impugned notification dated 11.8.1997 (Annexure P-3) an amendment was made in the relevant clauses of the Pension Statute, providing that w.e.f. 25.8.1994 the rate of interest was to be taken as applicable on GPF/CPF accumulations fixed from time to time by the respondent-University. Therefore, the employees who wanted to get their past service counted after 25.8.1994 for pension were required to refund the terminal benefits drawn by them from their previous employers alongwith GPF/CPF interest rate rather than 6% simple interest. It is in these circumstances that demand for additional amount towards the same had been made from the appellant-petitioner. LPA No.101 of 2008. 4 The learned single Judge after considering the rival submission has held that the case of the petitioner had been finalised vide letter dated 15.4.1996 (Annexure P-1) and the amendment made in the relevant statues vide notification dated 11.8.1997 (Annexure P-3) could not be implemented retrospectively. Accordingly, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant and directed the respondent-University to refund the additional amount retained by them within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which 6% simple interest was required to be paid on the said amount till realisation. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner is that the learned single Judge has lost the sight of the fact that since the respondent-University constrained the appellant-petitioner to deposit the amount with compound interest as applicable to CPF/GPF, the respondent-University should be directed to refund the amount at the same rate of interest. In our thoughtful consideration, the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is misconceived and hence rejected. There was a serious dispute with regard to the applicability of the amended Clause 3.3 and 9(3) of the Pension Statutes of the respondent-University, made vide notification dated 11.8.1997 (Annexure P-3) to the case of the petitioner, who had sought counting of past service rendered by him with Kurukshetra University from 17.7.1963 to 12.10.1970 after 25.8.1994. It is not in dispute that the additional amount of Rs.76,000/- was deposited as per interim orders of this Court meaning thereby that prima facie the respondent-University had a case in their favour. However, the learned LPA No.101 of 2008. 5 single Judge has held, without quashing the notification dated 11.8.1997 (Annexure P.3) amending the clause w.e.f 25.8.1994, that counting of the past service rendered by the petitioner with Kurukshetra University on deposit of terminal benefits had become final in his case and that the formal sanction had been issued vide memo dated 15.4.1996, thereafter the amended rule could not be applied to him retrospectively to withdraw the said concession. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent-University had demanded the amount on the relevant date without their being any legal basis. It is a different matter that the said action has subsequently been declared as illegal by the learned single Judge and thus his right to get back the amount determined, with the amended clause remaining intact. In such circumstances, the learned single Judge in his discretion has rightly declined to grant interest on the additional amount paid by him. In exercise of our jurisdiction under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal, we do not find any ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge,hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE 1.7.2008 (JASWANT SINGH) joshi JUDGE