Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ghanshyam Dass Sharma vs The Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana ... on 2 July, 2024

CWP No.36064 of 2019 (O&M) 1
along with connected petition

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Pronounced on: 02.07.2024

1) CWP No.36064 of 2019 (O&M)

Dr. K.C. Bishnoi .... Petitioner
Versus

The Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana
Agriculture University, Hisar and another ... Respondents

2) CWP No.36545 of 2019 (O&M)

Dr. Ghanshyam Dass Sharma .... Petitioner
Versus

The Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana
Agriculture University, Hisar and another ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocat
Advocate
for respondent no.1-University.
University.

Mr. Sandeep Singh Mann, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
***

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

In both the aforementioned petitions a common issue based

upon similar facts arises for adjudication, hence the two are being decided

together by this judgment.

along with connected petition

Facts in brief

2. Facts are being taken from CWP No.36064 of 2019, wherein the

petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated

29.10.2019, Annexure P-15, as also the order dated 21.09.2002, Annexure

P-5, whereby the respondent-University University has given only six months

weightage in qualifying service for pension under Clause 3.2, Chapter

VIII-A of the Pension Statutes. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought

directing the respondents to add the complete four years and twenty-two two

days of qualifying service for pension in the light of judgment, dated

20.01.2017, rendered by this Court in CWP No.2474 of 2012 titled Dr. Mam

Chand Goel v. State of Haryana and others others.

3. Succinctly, facts of the case are, the University advertised posts

of Assistant Professor Agronomy; the requisite essential qualifications were,

Second Class B.Sc. (Agriculture), Second Class M.Sc. in Agronomy and

three years teaching/research/extension experience or Ph.D. (Agronomy).

The petitioner possessed the essential qualifications, and had the requisite

experience as Research Assistant in Agronomy also from August 1968 to

September 1969, and as Assistant Agronomist from September 1969 to

11.09.1970. Having been duly selected, he was appointed as Assistant

Professor Agronomy, vide letter dated 11.09.1970, Annexure P-1. At the

time of joining the service, his age was twenty-nine years and twenty-two two

days. Later, he was selected as Associate Professor in 1978; Professor in

1988; and superannuated from service on 30.09.2001.

3.1. Clause 3.2, Chapter VIII-A of the University's Pension Statutes

is as under:

3.2. An employee appointed to a service or post shall be

authenticity of this eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation uperannuation

along with connected petition

pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the actual periods by which his age at the time of recruitment cruitment exceeded 25 years or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the service or post to which he is appointed is one

(a) for which post-graduate graduate research or a specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or professional field is essential and

(b) to which candidates of more than 25 years of age are normally recruited.

Provided that this concession shall not be admissible to an employee unless his actual qualifying service at the time he quits University service is not less than 10 years.

Provided further that any such employee who is recruited at the age of 35 years or more may, within a period of 3 months from the date of his appointment may elect to forego his rights to pension whereupon he will be eligible to subscribe to Contributory Provident Fund.

3.2. Since the petitioner's age at the time of joining the service was

twenty-nine nine years and twenty-two days, he claimed the benefit of four years

and twenty-two twenty days qualifying service for superannuation pension in terms ter

of Clause 3.2. The University instead granted him weightage in service for

six months, vide impugned office order dated 21.09.2002, and released

pensionary benefits on that basis. This order was not challenged, and he kept

on drawing the pension accordingly.

3.3. There is a pari materia provision to Clause 3.2 of the Pension

Statutes for government employees 'Special pecial Additions to Service Qualifying

for Superannuation uperannuation Pension' under Rule 4.2-A of Punjab Civil Services

Rules, Volume II, as applicable to the State of Haryana. Also, the

Government has issued instructions, dated 05.03.2001, to interpret erpret

2024.07.02 15:45 provisions of Rule 4.2-A; the relevant part whereof is as under:

along with connected petition

A. Interpretation of the Rules:

                                  (i)     xxx   xxx   xxx
                                  (ii)    Secondly, the benefit of qualifying period under this rule

is admissible at the first entry level in service and not at a stage where the posts are filled up both by way of promotion as well as by way of direct recruitment (where the experience of lower/first entry post is a part of the prescribed qualifications). For example, it would be available in case of an Assistant Professor but not in the case of an Associate Professor.

(iii) Third, the benefit would be admissible only where postgraduate research or specialist qualifications or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields is prescribed as an essential qualification for the post.

(iv) Fourth, the rule further provides that in order to qualify for the benefit under this rule, the post must be such to which candidates of more than twenty five years of age are normally recruited.

The key words here are "normally recruited". This has to be understood in its proper context. For example, a child joins Class I at the age of 5 (five) years. This could be taken/ accepted as 6 years also (3yrs. + Nursery + LKG+ UKG and then first) depending on the circumstances of the case. He thus passes his 10+2 level at the age of 17/18 years as the case may be. Allow another 3 or 4 years for the graduation programmes depending on the kind of graduation. Thus he does his graduation at the age of 20 years (minimum) or 22 years (maximum). This is followed by a two year post graduation programme reaching the age levels of 22 to 24 years as the case may be. This is then followed by a Research Degree (say, three years) obtained at the age of 25 to 27 years as the case may be. The above would be a good guideline for understanding the normal course. If somebody takes up a job after 10+2, say for three years, and then comes back and resumes his studies, it

would not constitute a normal course.

along with connected petition

(v) Fifth issue pertains to the period of benefit. The rule is clear to the extent that the maximum benefit can be upto five f years. The calculation starts from the completion of 25 years of age. Here, it has to be seen as to at what age he would have acquired the essential qualifications in the normal course. The reference point is thus the acquisition of the prescribed essential qualifications and not when a person is recruited or appointed. Any deviation from the normal course of study for acquiring the essential prescribed qualifications for the post, be it for some other course of study, break in study, period of waiting or unemployment, any other employment or experience higher than what is essentially required will have to be discounted in the process of calculation of entitlement period. These instructions were adopted by the University on 21.02.2002.

3.4. Another employee of the University, who was directly

appointed as Associate Professor, and w was initially granted the benefit of

counting additional qualifying service under Clause 3.2. of the Pension

Statutes, which was subsequently withdrawn on the basis of interpretation

given by the government, dated 05.03.2001, challenged the same before this

Court by filing Dr. Mam Chand Goel case (supra). Based on this

interpretation, the University took a plea that addition to qualifying service

under the Clause was admissible only at the first entry level, i.e., on the post

of Assistant Professor. Since the petitioner therein was directly appointed on

the higher post of Associate Professor, which could be filled-up both by way

of promotion promotio as well as direct recruitment, the benefit could not be granted.

The plea was not accepted and this Court quashed the instructions, dated

05.03.2001, to the extent the same were contrary to Clause 3.2 of the

Pension Statutes, by holding that the benefit of qualifying service could not

be restricted to the first entry level post of Assistant Professor. It would be

available at the time of first entry into service by direct recruitment on a

along with connected petition

higher post as well, notwithstanding the post could be filled-up by

promotion. It is apposite to reproduce relevant paragraphs of the judgment

hereunder:

... Word "normally recruited" is to be interpreted in the context of the qualifications laid down in the advertisement. Instructions reproduced above shows that for the purpose of "normal recruitment" instructions talks of the normal age on which one joins class I and graduates or post graduates and thereafter, acquired research. It is merely an example when normally a person acquires research degree. However, I am of the view that the instructions had gone beyond the said Rule. If while acquiring the qualifications, the normal age exceeds 25 years, the benefit can not be declined on the pretext that one had deviated from the normal course or there was a break in study. Rule only laid down that it should be a post where the candidate of more than 25 years of age are 'normally recruited'. The test is whether normally a candidate of more than 25 years of age is recruited to the said post? If the reply is in positive, the benefit of Clause 3.2 of Chapter VIII VIII-A of the University Pension Statute is available to the employee and it is for the Administrative authority to decide how much benefit is to be given. It will depend upon case to case. Therefore, I am of the view that the instructions dated 5.3.2001 went much beyond the Rule. By mere instructions, the Rules cannot be amended. The clarification that the benefit is available only at the first entry level in the service and giving the example of Assistant Professor is misinterpretation of Clause 3.2 of Chapter VIII-A VIII of the University Pension Statute, which is paramateria to Clause 4.2A of CSR Volume lume-II is contrary to the Rule 3.2 and binding on authorities.

It comes out that vide order dated 13.2.2002 (Annexure P4), in view of the clarification/ instructions dated 5.3.2001, the weightage part towards the pension of the petitioner was stayed

till the finalization of the case by Board of Management. The

along with connected petition

University has also issued the instructions dated 22.3.2002 regarding implementation of Clause 3.2 of Chapter VIII-A A of the University Pension Statute, basically relying upon the instructions/ clarification dated 5.3.2001, which are contrary to the said Rule.

xxx xxx xxx In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the view that interpretation given vide instructions dated 5.3.2001 are contrary to the Clause 3.2 of Chapter VIII-A of the University Pension Statute, which is parimateria (pari materia) to Rule 4.2A of CSR Volume Volume-II and that the benefit of qualifying period cannot be restricted to first entry level in service i.e. Assistant Professor only. Benefit of such rules is available at the time of first entry into service by direct recruitment notwithstanding the fact that the post could also to be filled in by promotion.

Since, the petitioners made first entry in service as Epidemiologist and Associate Professor Agronomy, therefore, they are entitled to benefit of Clause 3.2 of Chapter VIII-A A of the University Pension Statute, which was earlier given to the petitioners vide order dated 8.1.1997 and 19.10.1996 (Annexure P2) and was wrongly withdrawn by blindly applying the clarification issued by the government. Therefore, the instructions dated 5.3.2001 (Annexure P3) so far as these are contrary to Clause 3.2 of Chapter VIII-A of the University Pension Statute and Rule 4.2A of CSR Volume-II are hereby quashed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.8.2007 (Annexure P15) and order dated 15.5.2006 (Annexure P13) and order dated 20.7.2007 (Annexure P10) also stand quashed. ... 3.5. The judgment attained finality as LPA No.346 of 2017 against

the same was dismissed, vide order dated 30.03.2017, by holding as under:

(6) In the light of the above above-reproduced interpretation of the Rule, the University assumed that the benefit of addition to the MANINDER 'qualifying service' under Rule 3.2 is admissible only "at the

along with connected petition

first entry level in service" which means on the post of Assistant Professor alone and not in the case of a directly recruited Associate Professor.

(7) Learned Single Judge has held and rightly so that any post on which an employee of the University is appointed first time by way of direct recruitment will have to be taken as "first entry level in service". Such an interpretation of Rule 3.2, in our considered view, is the correct statement of law for the reason that the private respondents in both the cases were direct entrants to the post of Associate Professor or equivalent and that was their first entry in the service of the University. The expression "service" has to mean 'any service' of the University to which a person is appointed first time by direct recruitment. (8) Rule 3.2 talks of appointment to "a service or post" at the age exceeding 25 years and the eligibility for appointment to such "service" or "post" must require postgraduate research or specialist qualification etc. and the post must be of such stature where normally persons with more than 25 years age are appointed. The post of Associate Professor or equivalent admittedly satisfy both the conditions. Only a postgraduate/ Doctorate with requisite teaching experience is appointed as Associate Professor and both th such eligibilities cannot be earned before the age of 25 years. The State Government on the pretext of interpretation of the Rule has attempted to add something to the Rule which is neither here nor there. The Government's interpretation of the Rule therefore refore has to be rejected.

3.6. After the judgment in Dr. Mam Chand Goel case (supra), the

petitioner sprang into action. Drawing parallels with it, he submitted a

representation to the Vice Chancellor, dated 12.09.2018, Annexure P-9, P

seeking similar benefits for him as well. The University responded vide

letter dated 21.12.2018, Annexure P-10, 10, informing that his case has been

referred to the State Government seeking advice as to whether the

2024.07.02 15:45 instructions, dated 05.03.2001, were still operative or had been withdrawn.

along with connected petition

The petitioner issued another demand notice, dated 16.02.2019, Annexure

P-12, seeking implementation of the judgment rendered in Dr. Mam Chand

Goel case (supra). Since the service was not being counted, he approached

this Court by filing CWP 18141 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order

dated 08.07.2019, Annexure P-14, directing recting the University to take a decision

on the notice. Finally, the University vide impugned order, dated 29.10.2019,

rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that it was not similar to

Dr. Mam Chand Goel case (supra), and that he had already been given the

due benefit of qualifying service of six months as admissible under Clause

3.2, vide office order dated 21.09.2002 21.09.2002. And his entitlement as per

instructions, uctions, dated 05.03.2001, had not been clarified by the government.

The petitioner has challenged this order by filing the instant petition.

The University's stand

4. The University has taken a specific stand that notwithstanding

the Government overnment instructions, dated 05.03.2001, it has framed its own

instructions, dated 22.03.2002, Annexure R-1/1, whereby the benefit under

Clause 3.2 of the Pension Statutes has been limited to a maximum of two

years. These instructions on the subject, 'Weightage under Clause 3.2 of

Chapter VIII-A VIII of the Statutes', read as under:

2. The State Govt. vide their letter No.1/2(43)2000-2FR 2FR-II dated 5.3.2001 have issued certain clarifications for allowing weightage for acquiring technical qualifications. These instructions have been circulated by CAU's office vide Endst.

No.CAUH/P6/2002/1574-1754 1754 dated 21.2.2002.

3. As per these instructions the degree of Ph.D. can be normally obtained at the age of 25 to 27 years, which means maximum weightage of two years is allowed as per these instructions.

along with connected petition

4. In view of the above instructions, where it was mentioned that Ph.D. degree can be completed at the age of 25 to 27 years, it was necessary to decide that by which age the qualification of Ph.D. can be acquired in CCS HAU. The Vice-Chancellor has approved the following details of the age for acquiring Ph.D. degree in Agriculture and Veterinary Science:

Sr. No. Name of Degree Age at which these Weightage can be obtained beyond 25 years

1 Ph.D. or M.Sc. with 3 27 years 2 years years experience.

2 Ph.D. or M.V.Sc. with 28 years (limited to 2 years 3 years experience. 27 years)

5. In case Ph.D. or M.Sc. with 3 years experience is acquired before 25 years, no weightage will be admissible. Similarly, if these are acquired before 27 years, then weightage admissible will be limited to the period taken above 25 years, but it will be maximum of 2 years.

6. The weightage under Clause 3.2 will be admissible only on the initial appointment of Asstt. Prof. & equivalent only when the qualification for the post of Asstt. Prof. was Ph.D. or M.Sc. with 3 years experience.

4.1. At the time of joining service as Assistant Professor in 1970, the

petitioner had excess qualifications over and above the prescribed degree of

M.Sc. with three years' experience. Having completed M.Sc. at the age of

twenty-two two years and six months, he could have attained the requisite

experience by twenty-five years and six months of age. And was only

entitled to the benefit of six months qualifying service which was given to

him vide impugned office order dated 21.09.2002. Accordingly, his claim is

not maintainable.

Submissions bmissions by learned counsel for the parties

5. In this factual background, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for

the petitioner has contended that he is entitled to the claimed relief in terms

along with connected petition

of the law laid down in Dr. Mam Chand Goel case (supra), and the

University has committed an illegality in not extending the same. The

Government overnment instructions, dated 05.03.2001, have already been set aside by

this Court which could not have been relied upon to reject the petitioner's oner's

case for the due benefit. It is also contended that his claim cannot be rejected

merely on the ground of delay, since pension is a recurring cause of action.

At best, the admissible benefits can be restricted to thirty-eight months prior

to filing of the petition.

6. Per contra, Mr. Khemka, learned counsel for the University has

contended that the petition is not maintainable on account of delay and

laches. It has been filed after an unexplained delay of seventeen years from

the date impugned order giving benefit of six months qualifying service rvice to

the petitioner, petitioner was passed. Secondly, learned counsel has contended that

Dr. Mam Chand Goel case (supra) has no application to the petitioner's

case. The issue decided therein was the applicability of instructions, dated

05.03.2001, to Clause 3.2 of the Pension Statutes to the extent it laid down

that benefits of qualifying service were admissible only at the time of first

entry in service as Assistant Professor, which is not the issue at hand.

Accordingly, the petitioner cannot draw the benefit even if the government

instructions have been set aside. Thirdly, learned counsel has contended that

the University has framed its own instruction, dated 22.03.2002; on that

basis the petitioner was found entitled to addition of six months qualifying

service, and the benefit was duly extended vide order dated 21.09.2002.

These instructions have neither been struck down by the Court at any point

of time, nor are the same under challenge. Therefore, he is not entitled to the

relief claimed.

along with connected petition

Analysis

7. On considering the arguments rguments advanced by learned counsel for

the parties and perusing the case file, this Court is of the view that the

petitioner's claim for the benefit of additional qualifying service under

Clause 3.2 of the Pension Statutes deserves to be accepted primarily

because; (i) the University instructions, dated 22.03.2002, based upon which

the claim has been rejected, are illegal being beyond jurisdiction, and (ii) the

Government instructions, dated 05.03.2001, can have no bearing on the

Pension Statute.

Statute

(i) Validity of the University instructions dated 22.03.2002

8. Facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was recruited in

service as Assistant Professor Agronomy at the age of twenty-nine years and

twenty-two two days on 11.09.1970, and attained superannuation on 30.09.2001.

30.09.2001

He was given benefit of six months quali qualifying service under Clause 3.2 of

the Pension Statutes, vide impugned office order dated 21.09.2002, and

remained contented with it till the decision in Dr. Mam Chand Goel case

(supra), vide judgment dated 20.01.2017. Thereafter, he claimed the benefit

of addition to qualifying service based upon the judgment. His

representation to that effect was finally rejected, vide impugned order dated

29.10.2019, on the grounds that the said judgment had no application to his

case; the due benefit as admissible under Clause 3.2 already stood granted to

him; and that clarification regarding his entitlement under Government overnment

instructions, dated 05.03.2001, was awaited. In the written statement, statement

however, a new ground has been taken, viz., inadmissibility of the

petitioner' claim under the University's own instructions, dated 22.03.2002, petitioner's

whereby the benefit of qualifying service under Clause 3.2 of the Pension

along with connected petition

Statutes has been limited to a maximum of two years. And in terms thereof,

he was entitled to addition of only six months' qualifying service, which

already stood granted vide impugned order dated 21.09.2002.

8.1 Undisputedly, the University has considered the post of

Assistant Professor in question as the one to which candidates more than

twenty-five five years of age are normally recruited. The petitioner was twenty-

twenty

nine years and twenty-two days old at the time of joining the post. However,

the benefit of only six months' additional qualifying service was given to

him relying upon the University instructions, dated 22.03.2002, which are

based upon Government instructions, dated 05.03.2001, whereby the normal

age to obtain Ph.D degree has been opined to be twenty-five to twenty-seven seven

years. Relying upon it, the University instructions stipulate that M.Sc. with

three years experience or Ph.D. can be acquired by twenty-seven years of

age and, accordingly, weightage of two years can be given under Clause 3.2.

Since the petitioner completed M.Sc. at the age of twenty-two years and six

months, he could have gained the requisite three years experience up to

twenty-five five years and six months. Therefore, being only six months above

twenty-five five years, he was entitled to add that much period as qualifying

service for superannuation pension which had already been done.

8.2. Clause 3.2 of the Pension Statutes provides that an employee

appointed to a service or post shall be eligible to add to his qualifying

service the actual period not exceeding one-fourth of the length of his

service, or the actual periods by which his age at the time of recruitment

exceeded twenty-five years, or a period of five years, whichever is less, if

the service or post to which he is appointed is the one; (i) for which post-

post

graduate research or a specialist qualification or experience is essential, and

along with connected petition

(ii) to which candidates of more than twenty twenty-five years of age are normally

recruited. In the instant case, undisputedly, these conditions were fulfilled,

that post--graduate research/experience was essential for the post against

which the petitioner was recruited, and the normal age for recruitment to the

post was also more than twenty-five years years; also, the petitioner was more than

that age at the time of recruitment, i.e., twenty-nine years and twenty-two two

days. However, the benefit of this period as addition to qualifying service for

superannuation pension under the Clause 3.2 was not given by alluding to

the University's own instructions, dated 22.03.2002, as discussed

hereinabove. Apparently, these instructions have been issued by the Vice

Chancellor to limit the period of additional qualifying service that an

employee is entitled to on fulfilling the conditions enumerated in Clause 3.2,

to two years beyond the age of twenty-five five.

8.3. The Pension Statutes have been made by the Board of

Management under Section 32 of the Haryana and Punjab Agricultural ultural

Universities Act, 1970; the relevant portion whereof is as under:

32. (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) The Board may, from time to time, make new or additional Statutes and may amend or repeal the Statutes in the manner hereinafter provided in this section.

(3) to (5) xxx xxx xxx

8.4. Evidently, the power to make Statutes is vested with the Board, Board

and as stipulated under sub-section (2),, the power to amend, modify y or

change a Statute is also vested with it. Regardless, the instructions, dated

22.03.2002, have been issued by the Vice Chancellor which effectively

modify Clause 3.2 of the Statutes by limiting the maximum admissible

benefit of additional qualifying service to two years, instead of five, as laid

along with connected petition

down therein.

therein Since such a power could only have been exercised by the

Board, the instructions issued by the Vice Chancellor are per se without

jurisdiction, and have no force in the eyes of law. It cannot be a basis to

reject the petitioner's claim either.

(ii) Validity of the Government instructions dated 05.03.2001

9. The University instructions,, dated 22.03.2002, are based on

Government overnment instructions, dated 05.03.2001, which have been examined by

this Court in Dr. Mam Chand Goel case (supra), as apparent from relevant

paragraphs of the judgment reproduced herein above. In that case, the

University had declined the benefit under Clause 3.2 of the Statutes by

referring to the Government instructions, stipulating that only an employee

recruited at the first entry level, i.e., as Assistant Professor, would be entitled

to it. Since ince the petitioner therein had joined the service directly on the higher

post of Associate Professor, which was a promotion post as well, he would

not be given the benefit. Rejecting the University's view, this Court held,

'The expression "service" has to mean 'any service' of the University to

which a person is appointed first time by direct recruitment'. Accordingly,

the instructions to the contrary, dated 05.03.2001, were set aside. In appeal, appeal

the Division ivision Bench, while upholding the judgment, rejected the

interpretation given to the Rule vide these instructions, by observing in its

order, dated 30.03.2017, "The State Government on the pretext of

interpretation of the Rule has attempted to add something to the Rule which

is neither here nor there. The Government's interpretation of the Rule

therefore has to be rejected." The judgment attained finality, and has been

implemented by the University as well. Although, as contended by

Mr. Khemka, it deals with a clause in the instructions which was not the

along with connected petition

reason to decline the benefit of additional qualifying service to the petitioner

in the instant case, and the Court's observations so far as the issue at hand is

concerned oncerned are obiter dicta which cannot entitle him to the benefit,

nonetheless its persuasive value remains unflinching. The reasoning given

by his Lordship is, "Word 'normally recruited' is to be interpreted in the

context of the qualifications laid down in the advertisement. ...However, However, I

am of the view that the instructions had gone beyond the said Rule. If while

acquiring the qualifications, the normal age exceeds 25 years, the benefit

can not be declined on the pretext that one had deviated from the normal

course or there was a break in study. Rule only laid down that it should be a

post where the candidate of more than 25 years of age are 'normally

recruited'. The test is whether normally a candidate of more than 25 years of

age is recruited to the said post? If the reply is in positive, the benefit of

Clause 3.2 of Chapter VIII-A of the University Pension Statute is

available..." This Court is in respectful agreement with the reasoning. available...".

9.1. Additionally, the words 'normally normally recruited' have been read and

interpreted out of context by the Government instructions dated 05.03.2001.

05.03.2001

As already discussed, Clause 3.2 of the Pension Statutes refers to the service

or post to which candidates of more than twenty-five years of age are

normally appointed, that requires post-graduate graduate research or experience as

essential qualification. It provides for the addition of actual period by which

one's age at the time of appointment exceeds twenty-five years, as

qualifying service for superannuation pension up to a maximum of five

years. The words in the Clause/Rule are clear and explicit which do not call

for any interpretation.

interpretation However, the Government overnment instructions on the pretext

of interpretation have limited the scope of this benefit by restricting the

along with connected petition

addition of qualifying service to two years years, instead of five; and further

excluded it to the extent of deviation or break in the normal course of study.

It has been done on the basis of time supposedly taken in acquiring the

qualification or pursuing studies/research. This cannot be the remit of qualifications

instructions issued to interpret a Rule, since interpretation, wherever

required, is meant only to explain the intended meaning of the words used, used

by looking into its context, background and object. Instead, the Government

instructions have given an altogether new restrictive meaning to the

Clause/Rule based on certain assumptions which cannot be countenanced

being beyond the scope of interpretation. Further, it is only after considering

all the relevant aspects, including the nature of post and the requisite

essential qualifications, that Clause 3.2 has specifically provided for the

benefit of maximum five years additional qualifying service which could not

have been een reduced by way of interpretation interpretation. In fact, the instructions have

read/incorporated words in the Clause/Rule Rule which do not form its part. Still

further, plain lain reading of the Clause makes it evident that the intended benefit

of qualifying service is to be extended dehors the actual time taken in

acquiring qualifications and post-graduate graduate research, experience, etc., only on

fulfilment of the conditions stipulated therein therein. This object has been defeated

by the instructions in reducing the admissible benefit on the assumed basis, basis

which is illogical and fallacious. Accordingly, the instructions, dated

05.03.2001, are unjustified and illegal being beyond the scope of Clause 3.2

of the Pension Statutes, and can have no bearing on the same.

Supplemental grounds

10. Moreover, the University instructions, dated 22.03.2002, have

been specifically disapproved of in Dr. Mam Chand Goel case (supra supra),

along with connected petition

though for a different reason, by observing, "The University has also issued

the instructions dated 22.3.2002 regarding implementation of Clause 3.2 of

the University Pension Statute, basically relying upon the

instructions/clarification dated 5.3.2001, which are contrary to the said

Rule." On this account as well, these instructions could not have been the

basis to reject the petitioner's claim as its substratum had already been

rejected as superfluous.

11. This Court is conscious of the fact that the University

instructions, dated 22.03.2002, have not been specifically challenged by the

petitioner. But that would not restrain the Court from accepting the petition

or passing the necessary orders. It cannot be lost sight of that the University

itself never conveyed to the petitioner that his case has been rejected based

upon these se instructions. Nevertheless, it has specifically pleaded and argued

that the said instructions were the basis of passing the impugned orders.

Once the Court has examined the validity of instructions dated 22.03.2002, 22.03.2002

as also its basis, i.e., the Government instructions dated 05.03.2001, and

found the former without jurisdiction, the same can unhesitatingly be

declared thus in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution. An illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by

sustaining a procedural objection, as raised by Mr. Khemka on behalf of the

University.

12. For the reasons recorded above, both the petitions are allowed,

and the impugned orders; (i) dated 29.10.2019 and 21.09.2002 in CWP

No.36064 of 2019, and (ii) dated 04.12.2019 and 05.08.2004 in CWP

No.36545 36545 of 2019, are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to

revise the petitioners' pension from the date of superannuation by extending extend

along with connected petition

the benefit of addition to qualifying service of four years and twenty-two two

days in the first petition and five years in the second petition. However, they hey

shall be entitled to arrears of revised pension from thirty-eight months prior

to filing of the respective petitions with interest at the rate of six per cent per

annum from the due date till actual payment. The directions are to be carried

out by the respondents within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of this

judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of

as having been rendered infructuous.

14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file.





                                                                            (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
                                                                                  JUDGE

                       02.07.2024
                       Maninder


                                    Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes
                                    Whether reportable                :      Yes