Dr. Rajendra Singh vs Union Of India & Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 1767 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43594 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Dr. Rajendra Singh
 
Respondent :- Union Of India & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Indrasen Singh Tomar,Pankaj Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Awadhesh Rai,Ram Gopal Tripathi,Vivek Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

1.Petitioner, before this Court, seeks quashing of the letters dated 22.12.2000 (Annexure 18) issued by the Adviser, Agro Economic Research (A.E.R.) Division, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, New Delhi, order dated 10th April, 2001 issued by the Finance Officer, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, and order dated 23.5.2012 issued by the Adviser, Agro Economic Research (A.E.R.) Division, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, New Delhi.

2.Facts, in short, leading to the present writ petition are as follows:-

(a). Ministry of Agriculture Department of India decided to open institution in the name and style of Agro Economic Research Centre (A.E.R.C.) at various places, including a Centre established at University of Allahabad. These Centres were provided financial assistance by the Central Government, and as per the letter of the Government of India dated 28th October, 1963, certain category of posts including that of Research Officer was also created for centre, which carried scale equivalent to the lecturer's pay scale. Initially, the centres were temporary centres. However, under the letter of the Government of India dated 21.5.1990, these centres were declared to be permanent centres/institutions (Page 71 of the paper book).

(b). From the records, it is apparent that after the centres were declared to be permanent centre, a memorandum of understanding was executed between the Central Government and the University of Allahabad on 21st May, 1996. After the centre was declared to be permanent, the Executive Council of the University of Allahabad is stated to have made a resolution to merge the centre with the University of Allahabad. In memorandum of understanding, executed between the University of Allahabad and the Government of India on 21st May, 1996, it was agreed upon that the centres would be treated as separate department/section of the University, and would be integrated with the same. Clause (ix) of the memorandum of understanding, which is relevant for the purposes, reads as follows:-

"(ix) The staff of the Centre would be considered at par with regular employees of the University for all the privileges enjoyed by the regular staff of the University i.e. pension, gratuity, provident fund allotment of quarters as per the existing rules, medical benefits all other benefits etc. as applicable to the staff of the University. They will also be considered for such advances and loans as may be extended by the University to its staff."

It appears that the said agreement between the Union of India and the Allahabad University, for providing the privileges to the regular employees of the centre at par with the regular staff of the University including pension, gratuity, provident fund etc., were actually not implemented by the University nor any resolution of the Executive Council for incorporating amendment in the statutes and ordinances applicable was made. It may be noticed that at the relevant time, the University of Allahabad was only a State University, covered by the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, and the liability of making payment of pension etc. had necessarily to be undertaken with the concurrence of the State Government, and the funds in that regard had to be provided by the State Government. Between the University and the Coordinator, Agro Economic Research Centre, University of Allahabad, correspondence is alleged to have taken place for issuance of a notification for integrating the centre with University of Allahabad, but in fact, no such notification was issued.

(c ). The petitioner, before this Court, filed Writ Petition No. 45290 of 2000 with the grievance that the request for notification being issued for integrating the centre with the University be made. In the order of the High Court, it has been noticed that the issue with regard to retirement/pensionary benefits to the staff of these A.E.R. Centres would be processed by the Ministry. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition by requiring the respondent-University Authorities to submit an appropriate reply to the Adviser, Government of India, to his letters, within a period of two months. The Government of India, vide its letter dated 22nd December, 2000, informed the University of Allahabad that the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, has never committed to pay the pension to the employees of A.E.R. Centres, and as such there shall be no additional contribution from the Government of India for this purpose. It was also stated that it was for the concerned University to consider payment of pension or otherwise to the employees of the Centres, out of their own funds or else they can work out a pension scheme based on an Annuity Scheme through Life Insurance Corporation or any other scheme based on voluntary contribution by the employees. It appears that letter of the Government of India dated 22nd December, 2000 was placed in the meeting of the Executive Council of the University of Allahabad, which took place on 4th March, 2001, and vide resolution no. 68, it was specifically resolved as follows:-

"fopkjksijkUr fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd mDr lsUVj dh lykgdkj lfefr dh vk[;k ,oa d`f"k ea=ky; ds i= esa of.kZr funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj ,xzks fjlpZ lsUVj esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dks isa'ku dh lqfo/kk vuqeU; ugha gSA rn~uqlkj MkW0 flag dks lwfpr dj fn;k tk;A**

(d). The petitioner, who retired on 31st January, 2001, approached the High Court, by means of second Writ Petition No. 6801 of 2002 for payment of pension on the plea that the letter dated 27.2.1986 virtually amounts to; (a) a condition of service of the petitioner; and (b) the memorandum of understanding is legally enforceable on the principles of promissory estoppel, and for the purposes, reference was made to the memorandum of understanding dated 21.5.1996, and letter dated 23.3/6/4/1998. A Division Bench of the High Court, by the judgment and order dated 22nd May, 2007, dismissed the writ petition, after recording that the correspondence between the Government of India and the University, the memorandum of understanding, the resolution of the Executive Council etc. have not translated into a right upon the petitioner to receive pension. It was held that the petitioner can claim only a right established by the law and as he failed to establish any right to receive pension, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Not being satisfied with the order of the High Court, the petitioner filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18441 of 2007. This special appeal was got dismissed as withdrawn, as also the writ petition leading to the special appeal before the High Court, with liberty in terms of the prayer made. It is worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portion of the order dated 30.3.2012, which was passed by the Apex Court on the asking of the petitioner:-

"In the peculiar facts of the case, we accept the requrest of the learned counsel and allow the petitioner to withdraw the special leave petition as also Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.6801 of 2002 filed by the High Court with liberty in terms of the prayer made.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had retired from service in 2001, we direct the concerned authority of the Central Government to take appropriate decision on the petitioner's representation within a period of four months of its receipt.

If the representation made by him is not decided within the period specified in this order or the decision taken by the Central Government is adverse to him then the petitioner shall be free to file fresh petition in the High Court. "

(e). The petitioner is stated to have forwarded a copy of the order of the Apex Court to the Secretary of the concerned Ministry for appropriate action in the matter of issuance of notification. The Adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture under letter dated 23.5.2012 has informed the petitioner that under the service conditions of employees of A.E.R. Centre, they are entitled to contributory Provident Fund only. The decision of the Central Government to make the 13 A.E.R. Centres/Units permanent was with a condition that "there will not be any extra financial implications on account of making A.E.R. Centres permanent and the level of expenditure will not be exceeded".

(f). As per the policy of the Government of India, benefit of pension has not been extended to the employees of A.E.R.C. Only contributory provident fund is to be provided to them, and in view of the pension, financial assistance is provided. After integration of the Centre with the University in terms of the memorandum of understanding, it is for the University to extend the benefit of pension to the employees of A.E.R.C., as are extended to other regular employees of the University. Reference was also made to the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, dated 15.7.2008, passed in Special Apeal No.100 of 2003 (Union of India Vs. Pratibha Bose and others), wherein it has been held that the employees of A.E.R.C. are not entitled to pension. It is against these orders that present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3.Challenging the order so passed, Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the University of Allahabad is bound by the Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of India dated 21.05.1996 as also by the resolution of the Executive Council dated 10.04.1996. It is submitted before this court that once the A.E.R.C. has been integrated with the University of Allahabad, the faculty members would be entitled to similar benefit pertaining to salary, leave etc. as are applicable to other employees of the University and they would also be entitled to post retiral dues at par which will include pension. It is submitted that from the correspondence, it is apparent that such benefit of parity has not been provided by the University to the petitioner only because a notification has not been published for the purpose by the ministry concerned of the Government of India.

4.Shri V.K.Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of the respondents disputes the correctness of the stand so taken and it is submitted that the issue with regards to the claim of the petitioner for being provided pension in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding and the promissory estoppal which according to the petitioner flows therefrom stands settled against the petitioner with the withdrawal of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6801 of 2002 without any liberty to file a fresh, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate the matter again. It is further submitted that the liability for payment of salary to teachers of the University from the State exchequer under the State Universities Act, 1973 at the relevant time was controlled by Chapter VI of the said Act and it is in respect of teachers covered by the said Chapter VI that with reference to Section 21(3) it is stated that no expenditure can be incurred by the university except with the approval of the State Government, previously obtained, and no post can be created either in the University or its constituent colleges without approval of the State Government or except by any general or specific order of the State Government. Sub Section 4 further provides that the pay and another allowances of various categories of employees of the University, constituent colleges or affiliated colleges shall be such as may be approved by the State Government.

5.It is also explained that at the relevant time finances were being provided for the University by the State Government and within the scheme of the State Universities Act, any memorandum between the University and the Government of India cannot bind the State Government nor there can be any monetary obligations accepted by the University without the concurrence of the State Government. It is further stated that the University as early as on 04.03.2001 had taken a decision that the employees of the Centre would not be entitled to pension. Such decision of the University was also communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 10.04.2001. It is lastly submitted that the Union of India has also informed the petition that they will not be entitled to pension from the Central Government as the Central Government had taken a decision not to take any responsibility in the matter of finances once the Centers were made permanent and were directed to be integrated with the University.

6.We have heard Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajiv Joshi, Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India, and Shri V.K. Singh, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar Singh for the respondents University, and have examined the records of the present writ petition.

7.At the very outset we may record that the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the Union of India and the University of Allahabad is not binding upon the State Government and it is not party to the same. From Section 21(3) of the Act, it is apparent that the University on its own cannot create any financial liability in the matter of payment of pension and allowances to the teachers without the approval of the State Government. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time finances were being provided by the State Government to the University of Allahabad including funds for payment of pension to the retired teachers. The University on its own cannot authorise payment of pension to persons for whom the post has not been created, without the sanction of the State Government, and qua whom the State Government had not approved payment of salary and other allowances at any point of time.

8.We may further record that no amendment in the State Universities Act or Statute has been brought to out notice where- under employees of the Center are said to have been entitled to payment of pension. We also find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that once the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6801 of 2002 had been dismissed on merits and thereafter S.L.P. filed by the petitioner had been got dismissed as withdrawn with a further liberty to withdraw the writ petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen the said controversy by filing a second petition for the same cause.

9.We may record that Apex Court while permitting the petitioner to approach the High Court afresh, if decision is not taken by the Central Government or the decision taken is adverse to the petitioner, had not permitted the petitioner to re-agitate the matter with reference to the liability attached to the University. In our opinion the Chapter in that regard stands closed when the writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn and it is only if the decision of the Central Government is not to the liking of the petitioner or if the Central Government had not taken decision within the time frame that liberty to approach the High Court was available. We find that the Central Government had taken a decision and under the order order dated 23.05.2012 the petitioner has been informed that the Central Government is not ready and willing to take any responsibility in the matter of payment of pension to the petitioner after the Centers were integrated with the University of Allahabad, inasmuch as it was specifically stated that there shall be no extra financial implication on account of making A.E.R.C. Centres permanent and the level of expenditure will not be enhanced/exceeded. The Central Government had also clarified that it is now for the University to either extend the benefit of pension to A.E.R.C. employees or not.

10.As already recorded above, the University on its own cannot extend the benefit of pension nor the Memorandum of Understanding with the Central Government in that regard can bind the State Government as it is not a party to the same. We further find that the employees working at the Centre had got the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) which is the policy of the Government of India. Petitioner has also got the said benefit on retirement. We further find that another Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.100 of 2003 has also taken the view that employees of A.E.R.C. are not entitled to payment of pension.

11.For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned passed by the State Government.

12.Writ petition is dismissed.

13.Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

Order Date :- 12.8.2015

Anil/VR

(Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.)