1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T RAJ. AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY THROUGH REGISTRAR VS. Dr.B.C.LODHA “D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL [W] No.305/2006 UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT'S ORDINANCE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.04.2006 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6633/2005” DATED : 05.08.2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.D.S.Rajvi, for the appellant. Mr.M.S.Singhvi for the respondent. ***** BY THE COURT:- The petitioner entered the service of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur as he was appointed as Professor on 27.02.1984, prior to it the petitioner was in employment of Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar in the capacity of Asstt. Professor from 28.08.1977 to 26.02.1984. Petitioner also remained in employment of Rajasthan University, Jaipur as Lecturer from 04.08.1964 to 21.08.1977. The 2 services of the petitioner were placed with the services of Rajasthan Agricultural University, on its establishment by bifurcation of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur w.e.f. 01.07.1987. The petitioner stood retired from services on achieving the age of superannuation on 28.02.1997. The Petitoner therefore, remained in employment of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner as Professor from 27.02.1984 to 28.02.1997 and in employment of Rajasthan University, Jaipur and Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar from 14.08.1964 to 26.02.1984. As noticed, petitioner retired from service on achieving the age of superannuation on 28.02.1997. Petitioner since was entitled to retiral benefits, his pension was determined by the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner but while doing so, the appellant respondent University did not take into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner from 14.08.1964 to 21.08.1977 rendered in Rajasthan University, Jaipur and from 21.08.1977 to 26.02.1984 with Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar. Aggrieved against non-counting of the above period of service while determining the total period of petitioner's service, the petitioner preferred present Writ Petition No.6633/2005 with a prayer that respondent be directed to revise the pensionary and other terminal benefits of the petitioner after counting service rendered by him from 14.08.1964 to 21.08.1977 in Rajasthan University, Jaipur and from 3 21.08.1977 to 26.02.1984 in Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar with all consequential benefits. The petitioner also sought direction against the respondent that respondent be directed to compute the arrears payable to the petitioner after deducting the contribution payable by the petitioner for the above mentioned period and pay to the petitioner arrears alongwith interest at the rate of 15@ per annum from the date the amount became payable till the date of payment. The petitioner's writ petition was allowed by impugned judgment dated 07.04.2006 holding that petitioner is entitled to the relief and direction was issued to respondent University to release and pay to the petitioner all the arrears for which petitioner is entitled as a difference in pension and other pensionary benefits by taking into consideration services rendered by him with Rajasthan University, Jaipur and Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar by adjusting contribution required to be paid by the petitioner to the University. While allowing the writ petition of the petitioner, learned Single Judge also made it clear that while charging interest from the petitioner if the respondent University determine it by compounding the same then the arrears required to be paid to the petitioner shall also be determined by compounding the interest with principal amount, if university charges simple interest then the petitioner shall also be entitled for getting simple interest on the arrears. So far as main relief of counting of service of the petitioner rendered in above two Universities are concerned, the appellant 4 University has no grievance. In this appeal grievance of the appellant is only with respect to giving interest to petitioner by the University in the same terms in which the appellant University wants to charge the interest over the amount which is required to be either paid by the petitioner or which would be adjusted by the University from petitioner's any due against the University. We perused the impugned judgment in which facts have already taken note which we have referred above and so far as entitlement of the petitioner of his past services rendered in two Universities are concerned, the appellant University has not challenged because of the reason that University before learned Single Judge has already conceded the right of the respondent petitioner for his claim for counting his services rendered in above two Universities. We found from the impugned judgment that learned Single Judge balanced the claim of the parties by ordering that if the appellant University charges the interest either compound or simple from the petitioner then certainly the petitioner is also entitled to same benefit of interest i.e. if University charges compound/simple interest from the petitioner for any amount which was due in the petitioner then certainly the University was also liable to pay the compound/simple interest for the amount which was not paid to the petitioner. We do not found any illegality in the impugned order rather say we are in full agreement with the direction given by the learned Single Judge so far as levy of interest by the respective parties are concerned. 5 However, we make it clear that if University will not charge any interest from the petitioner then the petitioner shall not be entitled to any interest over the arrears which are required to be paid to the petitioner in consequence of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant University submits that appellant University has already paid the arrears of pension and commutation but amount of gratuity has not yet been paid for which there is an interim order passed by this Court. Since we have held that no interference is called for in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and we do not found any merit in the appeal, therefore, the appellant University is directed to pay the difference of arrears of gratuity within a period of two months if it has not paid and may not have been paid due to pendency of this appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has already retired long back. The issue of pensionary benefit was pending since 1997 and the petitioner's writ petition was allowed as back as more than 4 years ago. Meanwhile, subsequent development occurred because of the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant University has not given full benefit of 6th Pay Commission recommendations to the petitioner. Since it is a pension matter and the right of the petitioner of counting his past service has already been determined and has been 6 upheld by us in this judgment therefore, if petitioner has any grievance then he may submit his representation to the University so that University may consider and pass appropriate order of giving full benefits to the petitioner in view of the 6th Pay Commission recommendation and if the University finds that some amount is required to be paid to the petitioner after re-examining the matter the petitioner be paid accordingly. The exercise may be completed by the University within a period of two months. Learned counsel for the appellant University submits that this order may not become precedent for the purpose of re-opening of all decided matters. We are also in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the appellant University and this judgment shall not become precedent for re-opening of the long back settled disputes. Accordingly, the special appeal [writ] is dismissed with above observations and directions. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI ), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. /mamta/