1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Dr. G.D.Sharma v. The Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1738/2003 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order :: 18th September, 2007 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Mukesh Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the respondent. Mr. B.L.Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate. .... BY THE COURT : In the year 1964 the Agriculture University, Udaipur was turned into a multi faculty university with name as “University of of Udaipur” and that was renamed in the year 1984 as “Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur”. By the Rajasthan Agriculture University Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1987”) a new Agriculture University in the name of Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner was created and entire agriculture faculty of Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur including the constituent colleges of Agriculture Science were kept under the control of newly created university. 2 By bifurcating the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner the State Legislature in the year 1999 established a second Agriculture University in State of Rajasthan named as “Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur”. The colleges relating to Agriculture Science in South- East Rajasthan, those were under the control of Rajasthan Agriculture University were kept under the control of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur on its creation. It is also pertinent to note that the college of Veterinary and Animal Science, Bikaner was established in the year 1954 by the Government of Rajasthan and that become part of the University of Udaipur (subsequently renamed as Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur) on its creation and remained as such till handing over of it to Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner in the year 1987. In line of sequence as above, it can be safely said that most of the Agriculture Colleges and the colleges relating to Agriculture Science including the college of Veterinary and Animal Science, Bikaner were initially part of the University of Udaipur that was subsequently renamed as Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur. 3 In the year 1991 as a consequent to a decision taken by the Government of Rajasthan, various universities in the State framed regulations for grant of pension to their employees and those were implemented by Vice Chancellors of respective universities. The provisions so enacted for grant of pension to their employees in various universities in the State of Rajasthan including the Agriculture Universities are analogous and those came into force on 1.1.1990 having application to all regularly appointed teachers, officers and employees in service of universities. The regulations enacted by Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner are named as the “Rajasthan Agriculture Universities Pension Regulations, 1990”. The petitioner, after getting voluntary retirement from the services of Government of Rajasthan, was employed with Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur as Assistant Professor on 5.2.1983 and was posted at the college of Veterinary and Animal Science, Bikaner. On establishment of Rajasthan Agriculture University in the year 1987 the college of Veterinary and Animal Science, Bikaner was placed under the control of Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, thus, the service of the petitioner too was absorbed with services of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner. The petitioner while in service of the Rajasthan Agriculture University received a 4 promotion to the post of Associate Professor and retired from service on 30.6.1997. Prior to it on application of pension regulations the petitioner opted for contributory provident fund and not for grant of pension. A decision, that was circulated on 25.3.1995, was taken by the Government of Rajasthan that “in case of the employees who had taken voluntary retirement from the State Government and had thereafter joined the service of university, the service rendered by such employees in the State shall not be counted for pension by the universities”. The petitioner, after decision of the State Government as above, submitted a representation to competent authorities of the respondent university to permit him to opt for pension, however, the comptroller of the university by communication dated 26/27.2.1997 informed the petitioner that his request to revise the option cannot be accorded as per provisions of pension regulation No.4(1) Chapter-I, that provides “option once exercised shall be final and irrevocable”. The petitioner reiterated his cause by various representations including a notice for demand of justice through his counsel with the assertion that other universities in the State of Rajasthan including Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and Maharana 5 Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur have given an opportunity for re-option to its employees, thus, it should also be accorded to him but of no consequence, hence this petition for writ is preferred. The claim of the petitioner is that the respondent university should have permitted him to opt pension in view of the fact that he opted for contributory provident fund earlier as at that time there was no decision of Government of Rajasthan regarding non counting of service rendered with the State Government while computing pension. The petitioner also based his claim on the ground that all other universities in the State of Rajasthan including Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur have accorded an opportunity to its employees for opting pension. In reply to the writ petition the stand of the respondent university is that once an option was given by the petitioner for receiving provident fund under the contributory provident fund scheme, it was not open for him to change the same being option given is irrevocable under the Regulations of 1990. The university also shown its inability to allow pension due to lack of funds. 6 The State Government in its reply to the writ petition asserted that the university is an autonomous body and if its provisions do not prescribe for re- option, no direction can be given by this Court for granting one more opportunity to the petitioner to opt pension. Heard counsel for the parties. The facts, those are not in dispute, are; (1) the initial appointment of the petitioner was with the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and he was posted as Assistant Professor at the college of Veterinary and Animal Science, Bikaner. The college aforesaid was kept under the control of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner on its creation in the year 1987; (2)the control of all the colleges relating to Agriculture Science those were within the jurisdiction and control of Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur were taken over by the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner on its creation in the year 1987; (3)a big number of employees of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur stood absorbed in service of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner on and after its creation in the year 1987; (4)the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur was created in the year 1999 by bifurcation of Rajasthan Agriculture University, 7 Bikaner and on its creation a good number of employees of the Rajasthan Agriculture University were absorbed in service of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur. These employees also include number of employees those were at one point of time in employment of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur or even with the University of Udaipur as it was prior to 1987; and (5)an opportunity of re-option was given to the employees of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur but was not accorded to the employees of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner. In the instant matter the issue, that require determination, is that “in given set of facts the denial for revising option under the pension regulations by the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner to the employees like the petitioner who were employees of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and subsequently absorbed in services of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner is discriminatory, unjust and arbitrary”. In Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner there are/were employees who were earlier in service of Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and stood absorbed in services of the Rajasthan Agriculture University after its creation. Similarly, in Maharana 8 Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur there are/were employees who were earlier employees of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and also of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and stood absorbed in service of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur on its creation. The Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur is also having employees who were recruited by Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and stood absorbed in service of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur on or after its creation. The resultant position that emerges out from the admitted facts is that all the employees of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur had an opportunity to revise their options, the employees of the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, who were initially employees of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and were also employees of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner before creation of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur also had an opportunity to review their options. Even the employees of the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur who at one point of time were employees of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner but not of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur had a chance to revise their 9 options but the employees of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, irrespective of their source of inclusion in service of Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner are/were not having any such opportunity. The employees of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner who were earlier in service of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur suffered denial of re- option only because of a peculiar circumstance that they remained in service of Rajasthan Agriculture University. Had they been not absorbed with the services of the Rajasthan Agriculture University or had they been absorbed in services of the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur in the year 2002, they would have availed an opportunity of re-option. In the present case if the petitioner would have remained in service of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur the opportunity to revise option regarding pension was available to him. Even if the college of Veterinary and Animal Science, Bikaner would have been kept under the control of the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur as happened in the case of number of other colleges in South-East Rajasthan, the petitioner would have been entitled for exercising re-option. The unfortunate event for the petitioner is that he stood absorbed in services of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and also that the college of Veterinary and Animal Science, Bikaner has been kept under the control of Rajasthan 10 Agriculture University, Bikaner and that deprived him from an opportunity to revise the option. As a matter of fact in the set of facts as available, it can be very well said that all the employees who were at one point of time in employment of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and subsequently absorbed in services of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner or the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur constitute one class and no discrimination in these employees can be made relating to grant of opportunity to exercise option for pension specially in the circumstances that the pension regulations in all these universities are analogous. The argument advanced on behalf of the university that the opportunity of re-option was not given to its employees due to paucity of funds is absolutely ill-founded. A good number of employees of the University are already getting pension and if the persons who opted for Contributory Provident Fund would have opted pension then it was obligatory for the university to make payment of pension to them also. It is also pertinent to note that in the event the university allows an opportunity for opting pension to the petitioner then he shall also be under obligation to refund the amount he has received as provident fund with interest or that amount is to be adjusted against his pension arrears. 11 An another important fact that is to be noticed that in State of Rajasthan all the universities such as the Rajasthan University, Jaipur; Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur; Kota Open University, Kota; Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur; and Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer have given opportunity to its employees for exercising options relating to pension/contributory provident fund afresh. Though the universities are different, their entire set up is different, they were created by separate enactments but it is the position admitted that all these universities implemented pension schemes under the instructions of Government of Rajasthan and they are mainly dependent to the State of Rajasthan so far as grant of finance is concerned. It is also not in dispute that all the universities are having analogous provisions with regard to grant of pension. On basis of factual background as discussed above, I am of considered opinion that denial of exercising re-option for accepting pension under the pension regulations of 1990 by respondent Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner to the petitioner is not just and proper. Accordingly, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. The same, therefore, is allowed. The 12 Registrar of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner is directed to place case of the petitioner before the Board of Management of the University within a period of one month from today to consider the issue to provide an opportunity to revise his option for pension. The Board of Management shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible while keeping in mind the law laid down as above. In the event Board of Management allow to revise the option for pension to the petitioner, the State Government shall also provide requisite finance to meet financial burden so arising for the university. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.