IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 640/2008 Reserved on 1.9.2009 Decided on:17.9. 2009 ________________________________________________ CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya. …Petitioner. Versus S.K. Pathania and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal. For the Respondents: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.3. ________________________________________________________ R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. The petitioner-University has assailed by way of present petition the judgment rendered by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in CWP No.1278/1998 dated 7.9.2007. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.1 was allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh on 1.6.1973. He applied for the post of Deputy Students Welfare Officer of the respondent-University. He was found suitable by the Selection Committee. He applied for pre-mature retirement to the State Government on 30.5.1985. He joined the petitioner-university on 2.7.1985. He was released provisional pension by the State Government with effect from 7.4.1986. He retired on 30.9.1997. The case of respondent No.1 though was recommended by the petitioner- university, however, an objection was raised by the Auditor of the University. The case of respondent No.1 was not considered by the petitioner-university for releasing the pension on the basis of objection raised by the Auditor of the petitioner-university. Respondent No.1 approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance by way of OA No. 1278/1998. The same was allowed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 7.9.2007. The present petition has been filed against the judgment dated 7.9.2007 rendered by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-university has vehemently argued that the judgment rendered by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal is not sustainable. He then contended that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration rule 7 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and according to him, the case of respondent No.1 was 3 not covered by the scheme notified by the petitioner-university on 1.1.1997. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has supported the judgment rendered by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. Respondent No.1 joined the petitioner-university on 2.7.1985. His pay was fixed on 24.8.2006. The petitioner-University has notified the Pension Scheme on 1.1.1997. The relevant extract of the scheme relatable to the present facts i.e. para 1.11 reads thus: “The existing employee who has served the Central Government or any State Government or Autonomous body established under the Central/State Law, has been absorbed in HPKV service in the public interest or who has come over/joined the University service after rendering the service in the Central/State Government/ Autonomous body can get his past service counted towards pension if the refunds along with documentary proof thereto the terminal retirement benefits received by him from such Government/autonomous body for the service rendered there, to this University along with compounded interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 10% per annum from the date of receipt of these benefits till the date of deposit with the University.” Respondent No.1 joined the petitioner-university, as noticed above, on 2.7.1985. He was covered under the scheme. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal has argued that respondent No.1 was not absorbed in the 4 petitioner-University. However, we are not in agreement with the submission of Mr. Rakesh Jaswal. The expressions used in this scheme are ‘absorbed/came over and joined the University. The pension of respondent No.1 was to be worked out as per para 1.11 of the scheme. Respondent No.1 at the time of his pre-mature retirement had completed 20 years 11 months service with the State Government. He has worked with the University for a period of 12 years and 2 months. The objection raised by the Auditor in the present case is that respondent No.1 had been given the benefit of 5 years service when he sought volunteer retirement and his total service in the State Government was quantified as 25 years and 11 months. Respondent No.1 has worked with the petitioner-university for 12 years and 2 months and if the period of 5 years is taken out in that eventuality also the total period comes to 33 years. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal has also relied upon rule 7 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This rule is not attracted in the present case. Respondent No.1 is seeking only one pension. It is also admitted case of the parties that the petitioner-University had been making deductions from the salary of respondent No.1 for awarding him pension etc. The learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had taken all the pleas raised by the University into consideration while allowing the original application. The petitioner-university had been directed to do the needful strictly as per the scheme. The petitioner-University could not reduce the services rendered by respondent No.1 in the University by 5 years. The entire period i.e. 12 years 2 months was to be counted towards pensionary 5 benefits. The judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal is within the four coroners of law. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 17.9. 2009. *awasthi*