CWP No. 13247 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13247 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.12.2009 Prof.(Dr.) Kehar Singh, Retired Professor & ...Petitioner Vs. The Guru Nanak Dev University & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Dr.HPS Rahi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.R.L.Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.2 and 3. --- Vinod K.Sharma, J . (Oral) CM No.19960-61 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. CWP No.13247 of 2009 The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the impugned part of order Annexure P.9 vide which Audit CWP No. 13247 of 2009 2 Objection has been raised against the decision taken by the Syndicate for giving benefit of 5 years service on account of Ph.D degree earned by the petitioner prior to his joining service as a Reader. The petitioner retired from the service of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar as Professor and Director of Computer Centre in the year 1993. In the year 1994 the petitioner made a representation claiming benefit of the addition of 5 years of service to his qualifying service as per the provisions of Rule 4.2 (A) of the Punjab Civil Services (Pension), Rules Vol.2.The request made by the petitioner was not accepted. The petitioner approached this court by filing CWP No.11563 of 1998, which was decided on 15.12.2008. The operative part of the order passed by this court reads as under; “ It will be too technical to deny the member of faculty benefit of provisions of Punjab Civil Service (Pension) Rules (Volume-II) as noticed in Section 4.2 and 11(c)(1) of Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume 1 Act & Statutes, 2007, on the ground that recruitment rules did not contain such a provision. This beneficial provision was only made for the members of the faculty of the University who put in their time and energy in research and equip themselves with better education based on research for imparting learning. For acquiring education and learning and then teaching, there always ought to be premium and no discount can be provided by the institution who are wedded to the cause of education. CWP No. 13247 of 2009 3 In the present case, no conscious decision has been taken by the University. It has relied upon the audit objection. The person raising the audit objection has done so in a mechanical manner without looking to as to why these provisions were adopted. Therefore, the highest quarters of the University in whom a decision making power vest should take a conscious decision as to whether the Professors, Readers or members of the faculty who had spent their considerable time in acquiring education are to be given benefit of these provisos or not.” In order to implement the decision of this court, the matter was placed before the Syndicate of the University on 23.2.2009. The request of the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was allowed benefit of 5 years service on account of acquiring Ph.D. degree prior to his joining the service. The decision taken by the syndicate in its meeting reads as under:- “74. Keeping in view the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and according to statue 11(c) Volume 5 of the University Calendar 2007, the matter was considered regarding the granting of five years service benefit for having Ph.D. Degree prior to joining the service to Dr.Kehar Singh, Retd. Professor, Mathematics Department. The matter as per the note below was also considered Note 1: Dr.Kehar Singh had joined the University Service as Reader on 8.10.1970. His date of birth is 15.10.1933 CWP No. 13247 of 2009 4 and he was awarded a Ph.D. Degree in the year 1969. Dr.Kehar Singh has retired from the University from 31.12.1993. He has requested for giving of five years service benefit because of having got Ph.D. Degree prior to joining the University service, for which he had filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the decision of the writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court has rendered the following decision:- “In the present case, no conscious decision has been taken by the University. It has relied upon the audit objection. The person raising the audit objection has done so in a mechanical manner without looking to as to why these provisions were adopted. Therefore, the highest quarters of the University in whom a decision making power vest should take a conscious decision as to whether the Professors, Readers or members of the faculty who had spent their considerable time in acquiring education are to be given benefit of these provisos or not. A decision shall betaken by the University within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” Note: 2 The statue 11 © Volume 5 of the University Calendar 2207 is as follows: “A university employee appointed to a service or post CWP No. 13247 of 2009 5 after the twenty-sixth day of October, 1960 shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying the superannution pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of this service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded twenty five years or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the service or post to which the University employee is appointed is one: (a) for which Post-graduate/Research Degree or Specialist qualification or experience in scientific technological or professional fields is essential; and (b) to which candidate of more than twenty five years of age are normally recruited. Provided that the concession shall not be admissible to a University employee unless his actual qualifying service at the time he quits University service is not less than ten years. Provided further that this concession shall be admissible only if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain a specific provision that the service or post is one which carries the benefit of this rule. (2) A University employee who is recruited at the age CWP No. 13247 of 2009 6 of thirty-five years or more, may within a period of three months from the date of his appointment elect to forego his right to pension whereupon he shall be eligible to subscribe to a Contributory Provident Fund. (3) The option referred to in sub-rule (2) once exercised shall be final. The Office has made a remark that such benefit is being upheld as per the above statute by the audit. Hereby resolved that as per statue 11(c) Volume 5 of the University Calendar 2007, Dr.Kehar Singh retired Professor Mathematics Department is given five years service benefit for having got Ph.D. Degree prior to joining the service as Reader.” In spite of the decision of the Syndicate the relief has been declined to the petitioner by impugned part of order, attached as Annexure P.9, on account of audit department having not accepted the decision, without any specific order in this regard by the audit department. Notice of the writ petition was issued. Learned counsel appearing for the University has not been able to contest the writ, for the reason, that the Syndicate of the University which is the highest body has taken a decision for granting requisite benefit to the petitioner under Rule 4.2(A) Punjab Civil Services (Pension) Rules (Vol.II) which stood adopted by the University. The contention of the learned counsel, that there was no specific rule in the University regarding grant of CWP No. 13247 of 2009 7 this benefit stood declined by this court in the previous writ petition. It is not open to the University to raise the same plea again which stood rejected by this court. Mr.R.L.Gupta, Additional A.G. Punjab, however, opposed the writ petition again on the same ground, that for want of rule in the University Calendar, the audit department is right in raising objection to the benefit granted by the Syndicate of the University. This plea of the learned State counsel cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this court vide which similar plea raised by the University was rejected. It was held by this court that the provisions of Rule 4.2(A) of the Rules are in the nature of beneficial Rule and the benefit accrued to employee thereunder cannot be defeated on technical plea. The audit department has no role to play in a conscious decision taken by the competent authority. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The audit objection raised by the Audit Department is quashed. The respondents are directed to grant benefit to the petitioner, in pursuance to the decision taken by the Syndicate on 23.2.2009. The consequential benefit be released to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. No costs. (Vinod K.Sharma) 10.12.2009 Judge rp