IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 9560 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 16.04.2009 Dr. V.B. Kulshreshtha .... PETITIONER Versus Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. In the present petition, the dispute is regarding the counting of service rendered by the petitioner as Research Associate for the period from 2.3.1978 to 18.7.1980, for the purpose of granting him the pensionary benefits. His appointment as Research Associate was temporary at the fixed salary of Rs. 900/- per month. Thereafter, he was appointed to the regular post of Assistant Breeder. From the said post, he was promoted to the post of Maize Breeder (Bajra). Concededly, on 31.10.2006, the petitioner has retired from the CWP No. 9560 of 2008 -2- post of Maize Breeder (Bajra) on attaining the age of superannuation. Prior to the year 1991, the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was applicable to the regular employees of the respondent University. Thereafter, the Pension Scheme was introduced and options of the employees were obtained. The employees covered under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme were eligible to opt for Pension Scheme. Since the post of Research Assistant was purely temporary at fixed salary of Rs. 900/- per month, therefore, it was not covered under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. No CPF contribution was made in respect of the petitioner during his service period as Research Assistant. In view of these facts, after his retirement, in response to a letter dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure P-5), written by the Controller, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana to the Director, Kandi Research Centre, Ballowal Saunkhri (Nawanshahar) to obtain the consent of the petitioner for counting his service with effect from 18.7.1980 after excluding the period from 2.3.1978 to 18.7.1980 of fixed pay service, the petitioner himself gave an undertaking (Annexure R-1) in writing to exclude the period of his service as Research Assistant towards his pensionary benefits. Thereafter, on the basis of the said undertaking, the pensionary benefits were released to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the said undertaking was obtained from the petitioner under duress and he was entitled for counting the period of said service as Research Assistant towards the qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension. CWP No. 9560 of 2008 -3- After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that a disputed question of fact has been raised regarding the obtaining of undertaking in writing from the petition, which in my opinion cannot be gone into by this Court in the writ jurisdiction. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to entertain this petition in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and the same is, hereby, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy before the Civil Court. April 16, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE