Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prof. S.P. Paliwal vs Jai Narayan Vyas University Jod., ... on 9 November, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 512/2017
Prof. S.p. Paliwal S/o Shri Mukut Bihari, Resident Of House No.
71, Central School Scheme, Air Force Area, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Jai Narayan Vyas University Through Its Registrar, Jai
Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr B.S.Sandhu
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment / Order
09/11/2021 (PER HON'BLE BISHNOI,J.)
This appeal is preferred by the appellant being
aggrieved with the judgment dated 24.01.2017 passed by learned
Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the
appellant has been dismissed.
The facts, not in dispute, are that the appellant was
appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in Jai Narayan Vyas
University (hereinafter to be referred as 'the University') on
02.11.1984 and later on he was granted selection
scale/designation of Associate Professor in the revised pay scale
on 01.01.1996. However, on 07.07.2009, the appellant applied for
the post of Professor in Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi
Vishwavidyalaya, Wardha, Maharashtra (hereinafter to be referred
as 'the Wardha University') and was selected for the said post. He
(2 of 3) [SAW-512/2017]
filed an application to the University seeking permission to join as
Professor in the Wardha University for one year. The said prayer of
the appellant was accepted and after expiry of one year, the
appellant again filed an application for extension of time for a
period of one year, which was also accepted by the University and
the appellant continued at Wardha University.
On 05.04.2011 the appellant moved an application
seeking voluntary retirement from the University w.e.f.
17.07.2011 and for grant of five years qualifying service in
reference to the Pension Regulations, 1990, which was
conditionally accepted by the Vice Chancellor vide order dated
02.11.2011.
The appellant requested the University for grant of
weightage of qualifying service for the purpose of pension while he
was serving as Professor at Wardha University. The Registrar of
the University vide order dated 05.07.2012 refused to accept the
said prayer of the appellant asserting that the same is contrary to
the University Pension Regulations. Thereafter, a final No Dues
Certificate was issued by the University mentioning that the
appellant would be entitled to retiral benefits in accordance with
the Pension Regulations 17(a) and 17(c) up to 16.07.2009.
The appellant protested while contending that he is
entitled for notional increments of two years i.e. of 2010 and 2011
and his salary is also liable to be refixed accordingly. The
appellant further prayed that weightage of four months and
thirteen days in qualifying service for the purpose of pension
should also be extended to him.
When no relief was granted, the appellant filed writ
petition, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge
(3 of 3) [SAW-512/2017]
while observing that in view of Regulation 17(c) of the Pension
Regulations, claim of the appellant of providing him weightage of
five years qualifying service for the purpose of pension was
without any merit. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion
that as per the Regulation 17(c) of the Regulations, voluntary
retirement of an employee on leave not due without returning to
duty shall take effect from the date of commencement of leave
and it is not in dispute that after seeking leave from the University
to join for the post of Professor at Wardha University, the
appellant did not join his duties till the date of superannuation
and, therefore, the voluntary retirement of the appellant will be
deemed to take effect from the date of commencement of the
leave.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at
length, however, the arguments advanced by him have failed to
pursue us to take a different view.
Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal
and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J
33-masif/-PS
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
