IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1824 of 2005 Deo Mani Tripathi ………….Petitioner Versus G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology and others ……...Respondents. Present : Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate present for G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar/respondent nos. 1 and 3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar/respondent nos. 1 and 3. 2. The petitioner before this Court was appointed as a clerk in the Establishment Office of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar (from hereinafter referred to as the University) on 23.7.1969 on a pay-scale of ` 100 – 180 by orders of the Establishment Officer for the Vice Chancellor of the University. Consequently, vide order dated 15.7.1970 of the Board of Management of the University, the petitioner was placed on a pay-scale of ` 120-220 on the post of account clerk. The respondent University is admittedly a State University. This University also runs within its campus a school known as “Bal Niliyam Nursery School”. The petitioner 2 meanwhile was transferred to that school vide order dated 29.1.1973 and continued working in that school as an account clerk. The petitioner thereafter retired from service on 30.9.2004. However, the petitioner contends that he is not being treated as an employee of the University and therefore is not getting the post retirement benefits, including pension for which the petitioner is entitled as an employee of the University. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers :- “(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of the last pay drawn by him as per pension regulations and pay him accordingly with interest. (b) any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (c) to award the cost to the petitioner.” 3. The respondent University in its counter affidavit though submit that the petitioner is not an employee of the University and is only liable to get the post retirement benefits as an employee of the “school” which was run by a committee of management and not by the University. Moreover the school came under grant-in-aid in the year 1971 and therefore whatever post retirement benefit, including pension, for which the petitioner is entitled, he is only entitled in that capacity i.e. in the capacity of an employee of a private though under grant in aid school! 4. In short, whereas the petitioner claims to be an employee of the University and claims benefits as such, the University is not accepting these claims of the petitioner and states that after the U.P. High School & 3 Intermediate (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers & Other employees) Act came in the year 1971 the school which was indeed run in the premises of the University came under “grant in aid” and the petitioner exercised his “option”, he can no more claim to be an employee of the University. 5. It is an admitted fact that there are many private colleges which are under grant in aid and their salary as well as post retiral benefits are to be given by the State Government, as it is the State which has been funding such schools. However, in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh as well as in the present State of Uttarakhand, more particularly under the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 and the schedule attached to it, the committee of management which runs a school must be constituted of an “elected body”, a body which must have periodic elections. 6. Section 33 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 which is related to term of Management Committee reads as under :- “33. Term o management Committee:- In the Scheme of Administration framed under Section 29 of this Act, the term of office of the Committee of Management shall not be prescribed for a period exceeding three years.” 7. Clause (2) of the Schedule - One of the Uttaranchal School Education Act reads as under :- “ SCHEDULE-ONE (See Section 30) Principles on which approval to a Scheme of Administration shall be accorded – Every Scheme of Administration Shall- 4 (1) …. (2) provide for the procedure for constituting the Committee of Management by periodical elections,” 8. Although what has been referred here are the provisions of Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 yet there is no dispute regarding the legal position that even prior to it in Uttarakhand as well as in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh only a Committee of Management duly elected by members of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act was actually entitled to be under grant in aid. Hence there is no dispute on this aspect. 9. In the present case, we find and it is admitted by the senior counsel appearing for the University Mr. Rajendra Dobhal that there is no “elected” committee of management nor was there any periodic election for the committee of management and the members of the management committee continued to be the office bearers of the “University”. Therefore, in short, even assuming for the sake of argument that the school was being run technically by the committee of management, the committee of management itself constituted of the office bearers of the University and therefore the submission of the respondent University that the services of the petitioner was being governed by the committee of management of the school and not by the University is wrong. The entire administrative powers were continued to vest with the office bearers of the University and as such the University cannot escape from its liability. 10. The another argument of the respondent University is that the petitioner had given an “option” in the year 1990. This Court has also perused the document on 5 which reliance has been placed by the State and the University. This document is only regarding the option for choosing the “new pension scheme”. The option nowhere states that the petitioner has now opted to be an employee of the State Education Department and has relinquished the University of all its liabilities. 11. In pure legal terms, what this Court finds here is a situation where the “master-servant” relationship between the University and the petitioner never seized or snapped by any event, actual or fictional, including the alleged “option”, on which such a heavy reliance has been placed upon by the University. Merely because after a certain period of employment, a committee of management was brought into existence, for purely administrative reasons, the initial relationship of “master and servant” between the University and the petitioner will not come to an end. There was always a master servant relationship between the University and the petitioner. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. This Court holds that the petitioner was an employee of the University. The respondent no. 1 i.e. the Registrar, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby directed to treat the petitioner as an employee of the University and fix the pension of the petitioner and pay the same, including other post retiral benefits within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 13. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.11.2011 Avneet