SCA/8956/2004 1 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8956 of 2004 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12810 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= PRAMODKUMAR - Petitioner(s) Versus INFORMATION AND LIBRARY NETWORK CENTRE (INFLIBNET) & 2 - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR MUKUL SINHA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR CH VORA for Respondent(s) : 1, MR MITUL K SHELAT for Respondent(s) : 2, MR HARIN RAVAL, for Respondent(s) : 3, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 14/05/2008 CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the non-payment of pensionary benefits and SCA/8956/2004 2 JUDGMENT gratuity to the petitioner for the period between 28.2.1991 to 28.2.2001. 2. The facts as emerging from the record of the proceedings are that the petitioner was working as a Scientist/Engineer “G” in the Space Application Centre of the Government of India. The University Grants Commission with the approval of the Government of India, as per the provisions contained in Section 12 (ccc) of the UGC Act, 1956, established the Information and Library Network Centre as an Inter-University Centre in the year 1991. The petitioner was offered the post of Director of the Inflibnet Programme on the pay scale and terms and conditions of service as that of the Vice-Chancellor of Central University. On 28.2.1991, the petitioner resigned from the post of Scientist/Engineer in the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Ahmedabad and joined the Inflibnet Centre as Director for a period of five years in terms of the offer made to him. Vide order dated 26.2.1996 the services of the petitioner were continued on the same terms and conditions for a further period of five years. During the entire tenure of his service contribution at the rate of 6% was deducted from his salary towards GPF. On 28.2.2001, the petitioner retired from service. 3. The petitioner upon retirement applied to the Centre for grant of pro-rata pension with effect from the date of appointment in the Inflibnet centre till the date of his retirement. However, the petitioner has not been granted the pro-rata pension. Being aggrieved by the said stand of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The petitioner has relied upon the offer for appointment dated 18.1.1991 (Annexure “A”) addressed by Prof. J.V. Narlikar, SCA/8956/2004 3 JUDGMENT Director of the Inter University Centre for Astronomy and Physics, the letter dated 26.2.1996 (Annexure “G”) addressed by the University Grants Commission to Prof. Narlikar conveying the decision of the Commission to extend the term of the petitioner for the second term of five years from 28.2.1996 to 27.12.2001, the terms and conditions of service of a Vice Chancellor of a Central University as the order dated 2.7.2001 passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 392 of 2007 in Special Civil Application No. 22482 of 2005. Relying upon the aforesaid material, the petitioner has contended that in terms of the appointment order, the extension order and the bye-laws of the Inflibnet, the petitioner is entitled to pro-rata pension with effect from the date of his appointment in the Inflibnet till the date of his retirement. 5. Respondent No. 1 – Inflibnet Centre has contended that the Centre has been continuously in correspondence with the University Grants Commission for obtaining the approval for granting the pro-rata retirement and other benefits to the petitioner. However, the Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi by its communication dated 17.5.2003 (Annexure G-5) conveyed to the UGC the decision of the Ministry of Finance, that in view of the policy decision taken by the Government, not to agree to the introduction/regulation of GPF- cum-Pension Scheme in autonomous bodies due to its huge financial implications, it was not possible to agree to the proposal and the Centres were directed to follow the CPF Scheme, and for that purpose to get the CPF Rules notified under the Provident Fund Act, 1925 by the Ministry of Finance. 6. On behalf of respondent No. 2 – University Grants Commission reliance is placed upon the affidavit filed in Special Civil Application No. 22482 of 2005, which has been adopted as a reply in the present matter and pursuant thereto, the same is taken SCA/8956/2004 4 JUDGMENT on record. In the said affidavit, the Commission has stated that the terms and conditions of service of the Centre were governed by the bye-laws of the Inflibnet Centre. The bye-laws provide that employees of the Centre shall be entitled to retirement benefits as per the Government of India Rules. The UGC by its letter dated 1.8.1996 had informed the Director, Ministry of Human Resources Development to approve the decision of the UGC to follow the Government of India Rules regarding GPF/CPF as amended from time to time in respect of the employees of the five Inter-University Centres. It was advised by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance that only CPF Rules be furnished for examination. The Chairman of the UGC, however, took up the issue with the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, wherein it was empathetically conveyed that since the Centres were set-up following the pattern already prevailing in the UGC and the Fourth and Fifth Pay Commission pay scales were also implemented on the understanding that the conditions of service were same as in the Government of India, consequently the CPF/GPF Schemes were in existence in the Centres right from inception and, therefore, it would not be feasible to withdraw the said benefit with retrospective effect. In the subsequent meeting held on 25.9.2002, it was resolved that the Centres be asked to take necessary steps for notification of CPF Rules, and in the meanwhile efforts be continued for granting approval of the GPF Scheme from the Government of India. Subsequently, however, vide communication dated 17.7.2003, the UGC was informed of the decision not to accept the proposal for introduction/regularization of the GPF-cum- Pension Scheme in the Centres. Vide its letter dated 4.5.2005, the Financial Advisor, UGC had sent to the Ministry of Finance as well as to the Ministry of Human Resources Development, the proposal regarding introduction of the GPF/CPF Scheme for the officers of the Inter-University Centres. However, by its letter dated 25.7.2005, the Ministry of Human Resource Development had SCA/8956/2004 5 JUDGMENT informed the UGC that the proposal dated 22.2.2000 of the UGC to allow GPF-cum-Pension Scheme on Government of India pattern for employees appointed by the Inter-University Centres was considered and it was decided not to agree to the proposal of the Commissioner. In the circumstances, the UGC informed the Director of All Inter-University Centres of the decision and requested them to follow the instructions of the CPF Rules and take necessary corrective measures. It is the case of the UGC that so far as the Pension Scheme for employees of the Inter-University Centres, including the Inflibnet Centre, is concerned, the same is to be approved and notified by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, and only after the approval is received, the UGC could circulate the same for implementation and compliance. 7. Respondent No. 3 – the Central Government in the Human Resources Department has not filed any reply in the present proceedings. The case of respondent No. 3 is that it had never approved the GPF Pension Scheme in respect of the employees of the Inter-University Centres, and in fact had taken a policy decision not to agree to their introduction/regularization of GPF-cum- Pension Scheme in the Inter-University Centres due to its huge financial implications. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner would not be entitled to claim pro-rata pension as prayed for in the present petition. 8. We have given anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is an admitted position that the offer of appointment dated 18.1.1991 (Annexure “A”) and the order dated 26.2.1996 (Annexure “C”) extending the order of appointment provided that the petitioner was entitled to the same terms and conditions of service SCA/8956/2004 6 JUDGMENT as a Vice Chancellor of a Central University. These service conditions were given without any reservation or subject to any condition. Condition No. 4 of the terms and conditions of service of the Vice Chancellor provides that the Vice Chancellor will be eligible to opt for General Provident Fund – Pension – Gratuity Scheme if he had not attained the normal age of superannuation prior to the commencement of his tenure, and provided that he had become eligible for Pension Scheme as an employee of a Central/State Autonomous body or Central/State University before joining. Bye-law (2.13) also provides for grant of the said benefit. In terms of the aforesaid, the petitioner's GPF contribution was regularly deducted from his salary during the entire tenure of his service. In the instant case at the point of time the letter dated 17.7.2003 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development conveying the decision of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India regarding non-extension of benefit of pension to the employees of the INFLIBNET and similar other Inter University Centres was received, the petitioner had already retired from service on 28.2.2001. On the date of retirement, no CPF rules were framed or approved in respect of the employees of the Centre including the petitioner. No alterations were made to the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner during the tenure of his service. Alterations made subsequent to his retirement would not alter the rights of the petitioner. The petitioner would, therefore, be governed by the terms and conditions of his employment as per the offer of appointment and as per the extension order. 10. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. We direct that respondent No. 1 shall process the petitioner's application for grant of pro-rata pension and leave encashment in accordance with the conditions of service of a Vice Chancellor of a Central University and pay the petitioner all the monetary benefits on that basis including leave encashment, arrears of pension from SCA/8956/2004 7 JUDGMENT the date of retirement till 30.4.2008 with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the due date till the date of payment. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner retired in 2001 and seven years have passed, the authorities shall comply with these directions as expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order. For the subsequent period from 1.5.2008, the authorities shall pay the due amount every month regularly. 11. Before parting with the matter, we make it clear that this matter does not decide the rights of other employees of respondent No. 1 Centre nor have we decided the question whether the employees of respondent No. 1 Centre are governed by the GPF or CPF rules. The directions given in this judgment are rendered in view of the peculiar facts indicated hereinabove. 12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Since the main petition itself is allowed, the Civil Application for interim relief does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. [M.S. SHAH, J.] [RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.] sundar/-