(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
learned Single Judge dated 13.09.2023 in
2. We have heard Shri. Prasanna B.R, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri. Deepak D.C,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri.
3. The writ petition was filed seeking the following
(iii) Direct the Respondents to pay interest on the
withheld / delayed payment of pension at 12% per
annum by a writ of mandamus."
4. The writ petitioner contended that he was
appointed as Junior Assistant on 16.10.1984, initially for a
period of six months. The University extended revised pay at
Rs.950/- per month to the writ petitioner by proceedings
dated 26.08.1993. Thereafter, Annexure - C order was
passed on 19.09.1994, regularising the service of the
petitioner as Junior Assistant under the National Adult
Education Program ('NAEP' for short), in the scale of pay
Rs.1040-20-1100-30-1400-1800-50-1900 with usual
allowances till the end of the NAEP project. Monetary
benefits were to be admissible with effect from 09.08.1994.
The writ petitioner continued in the service of the University
since the project was ongoing. He retired from service on
30.04.2008. However, the University did not grant him
pension and accorded sanction for payment of Rs.43,633/-
as final refund of GPF amount accumulated in his account.
His request for pensionary benefits and Earned Leave
Surrender were rejected, which led to the filing of the writ
petition.
5. The respondents filed statement of objections,
contending that the writ petitioner was appointed to a
project and that he is not entitled to regularisation of service
or for pension.
6. The learned Single Judge considered the
contentions advanced and found that the petitioner's
services stood regularised by Annexure - C proceedings
dated 19.09.1994. It was found that the NAEP project was
an ongoing project and was not discontinued on any date
before the retirement of the writ petitioner. It was held that
in view of regularisation of his services, the writ petitioner
was to be treated as a regular employee of the University.
The writ petition was therefore allowed and the writ
petitioner was held entitled to Pension and Earned Leave
Encashment. It was specifically noted that the judgment is
being rendered having regard to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a
precedent.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
contend that respondent No.1 was appointed for a period of
six months as Junior Assistant with effect from 17.10.1984.
Further, respondent No.1 was regularized under the NAEP in
the pay scale of Rs.1040-20-1100-30-1400-1800-50-1900
with usual allowance till the end of the NAEP project by the
University in year 1994. University Grants Commission
ceased the said programme from 1997, therefore,
respondent No.1 is not entitled to retirement benefits.
8. It is further contended that respondent No.1 was
not appointed by the appointing authority against any
sanctioned post by giving advertisement for recruitment
according to Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Bangalore
University. It is further contended that the University had
replied to the objections filed by respondent No.1 with
respect to the seniority list published on 16.04.2007, stating
that respondent No.1 was appointed under the NAEP project
till the end of the project, therefore was not a regular
employee of the University. Further, the inclusion of
respondent No.1's name in the 1999 seniority list was a
mistake and was rectified in the subsequent list.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti
Corporation of India and Another v. Smt. Magi H.
Desai passed in Civil Appeal No.1787 of 2023.
10. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 contended that respondent No.1 was entitled for
pension and pensionary benefits on par with other
employees. The University failed to appreciate the
regularsiation of services of respondent No.1 in the year
1994, respondent No.1 acquired an indefeasible right to hold
the post of Junior Assistant in the University. Further,
respondent No.1 was sanctioned earlier leave and annual
increment, therefore, was treated on par with other
employees of the University.
11. We have considered the contentions advanced
and also perused the documents placed on record in the writ
petition as well as the materials on record in this writ
appeal. It is an admitted case that the writ petitioner had
been appointed as a Junior Assistant in the NAEP Scheme on
16.10.1984. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner
was in uninterrupted service of the University from his date
of appointment till his retirement in April 2008. In the
interregnum, as observed by the learned Single Judge, there
was an order for regularisation of the services for the
duration of the project as well.
12. The learned Single Judge had considered the
relevant aspects of the matter and had found that the
appointment of the writ petitioner was regular in nature and
that he was entitled to all the benefits that were provided to
regular employees of the University. From a consideration of
the Order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is clear that
the learned Single Judge has exercised discretion after
considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, on a
specific finding that the writ petitioner was by no means a
backdoor entrant and that the project to which he was
appointed was ongoing even on the date of his retirement
from service. The fact that the writ petitioner was in service
from 16.10.1984 and that the project was still in operation
when he retired from service in the year 2008 were also
considered by the learned Single Judge to hold the petitioner
eligible for pension.
13. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
find absolutely no good grounds made out to interfere with
the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge. The
appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
