Rajasthan Agr.Univ.Bikaner vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell, are as under :-

5. Upon taking voluntary retirement from the State of Rajasthan, respondent No. 2 is getting pension from the State of Rajasthan in respect of the services rendered by him to the State of Rajasthan. After being in employment of the appellant-University, along with entire staff of the appellant-University, respondent No. 2 was also asked to give his option whether he was inclined to opt for a Pension Scheme or for a C.P.F. Scheme. The options were invited by the appellant-University under Notification No.Pension/RAJAU/C/91/F-75/3668- 768 dated 17th August, 1991. It was stated in the said Notification that the employees who were in service of the appellant-University as on 1st January, 1990, shall have to exercise their option in writing, either for the Pension Scheme or for continuation under the existing C.P.F. Scheme within 3 months from the date of the Notification. It was further provided in the Notification that the employees, who would not exercise the option within 3 months from the date of the Notification, would be deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme.

6. Unfortunately, respondent No. 2 could not intimate his option to the appellant-University within the period prescribed but by his letter dated 3rd January, 1992, he had opted for the C.P.F. Scheme. He specifically stated in his communication dated 3rd January, 1992 that he did not opt for the Pension Scheme. Perhaps as a special case, the option exercised by him had been accepted by the appellant-University and the acceptance was kept on record after the authorized signatory of the appellant-University had accepted the option. Thus, his option for continuation under the C.P.F. Scheme had been accepted by the appellant-University.

7. On 30th June, 1997, respondent No. 2 retired from service and as per the record of the University, as he had opted for the C.P.F. Scheme, he was paid all his retirement benefits payable to him under the C.P.F. Scheme.

8. Respondent No. 2, thereafter made a grievance that as he had not exercised his option within the prescribed period of 3 months from the date of the Notification dated 17th August, 1991, as per the conditions incorporated in the said Notification, he should have been deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme and therefore, he should be paid pension as per the Pension Scheme.

9. The request made by respondent No. 2 had not been accepted because the appellant-University had already accepted the option of C.P.F. Scheme exercised by him.

10. In the circumstances, after about 6 years, respondent No. 2 filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1738 of 2003 praying for a direction to the effect that the appellant-University should pay pension to him. The High Court allowed the petition by giving a direction to the appellant-University to consider the case of respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforestated direction, the appellant- University had filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 32 of 2008 and at the same time a decision was taken by the appellant- University not to change its decision with regard to giving benefit of the C.P.F. Scheme to respondent No. 2.

11. By virtue of the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court, the appellant-University was directed to give pension to respondent No. 2. Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellant-University to change the manner in which retirement benefits should be calculated and give pension to respondent No. 2 as if he had opted for the Pension Scheme.

21. The appellant-University accepted the option exercised by respondent No. 2 and therefore, it cannot be said that the deeming fiction incorporated in the Notification would help respondent No.

2. For sake of convenience, relevant extract of the Notification dated 17th August, 1991, is reproduced hereinbelow :-

25. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the High Court was in error by giving a direction to the appellant- University that respondent No. 2 should be given pension as if he had opted for the Pension Scheme.

26. The appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.

..........J. (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi August 27 , 2013