Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. A.S. Jhala vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 January, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10248/2021
Shrikrishna Chaturvedi S/o Govind Ram Chaturvedi, Aged About
71 Years, R/o Flat Number 410, Sahara Apartment, I-Block,
Sector-14, Rajasthan Hospital Road, Udaipur-313002 (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Agriculture
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Senior Deputy Secretary, Gr. Iii, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Maharana Pratap University Of Agriculture And
Technology, Through Its Registrar, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. The Comptroller, Mpuat, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12154/2019
1. Dr. A.s. Jhala S/o Late Shri Roop Singh Jhala, Aged About
63 Years, Resident Of Jyoti Jhala Rawla Oladar, Opp.
Police Anvesham Bhawan, Behind Mobile Tawer, Badi
Road, Girwa, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. P. Subramanian S/o Shri Palaniyappan, Aged About 69
Years, Resident Of 11/86, Vellalar Street Panjarmadevi,
Panchmadevi, Karur, Tamil Nadu.
3. Arvind Kumar Sankhla S/o Shri Padam Singh Sankhla,
Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of F. No. 403-404, A/3,
Rohini Block, Vaishali Apartment, Manva Kheda Sector No.
-4, Girwa, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Babulal Shakdwipee S/o Shri Prabhu Lal Shakdwipee,
Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of 35/1205, Ration Shop
No. 78, Pratap Colony Pahada, Girwa, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Yogendra Kumar Shrimali S/o Shri Dhool Chand Shrimali,
Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of 146, Navratan
Complex, Bedla Road, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Gopal Savaria S/o Shri Ram Savaria, Aged About 72
Years, Resident Of 3, Sagra Colony, Kaka Mata Rod,
Pahada, Girwa, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
(2 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Senior Deputy Secretary, Gr. Iii, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Maharana Pratap University Of Agriculture And
Technology, Through Its Registrar, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. The Comptroller, Mpuat, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4697/2020
Krishna Dayma W/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Dayma, Aged About
66 Years, Resident Of 2-Ashok Vihar, Sukhadia Circle, University
Road, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Agricultural Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. The Senior Deputy Secretary, Gr. Iii, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Maharana Pratap University Of Agriculture And
Technology, Through Its Registrar, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. The Comptroller, Mpuat, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari.
Mr. Gajendra Panwar.
Mr. Mohit Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya.
Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
04/01/2022
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners
aggrieved by order dated 01.08.2019 (Annex.5) passed by the
respondent - University, whereby, the pension payment of the
petitioners has been stopped.
(3 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
At the outset it may be noticed that though reply to CW
10248/2021 has not been filed, both the learned counsel, for the
petitioner and the University submitted that the facts and
documents in said petition and other two petitions are identical
and therefore, the said petition may also be heard and decided
together with other two petitions.
As the pleadings in SBCWP No.12154/2019 are complete,
the facts indicated therein and documents filed in the said petition
have been taken into consideration and referred to hereinafter.
The petitioners retired from service of the respondent -
University on attaining the age of superannuation on different
dates from various departments and were holding different
designations as has been indicated in the writ petitions.
It is inter alia indicated in the writ petitions that on
17.8.1991, a notification was issued by the Rajasthan Agriculture
University, Bikaner, introducing Pension Scheme for the employees
of the University. The scheme came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1990
and granted option to switch over from Contributory Provident
Fund ('CPF') to Pension Scheme; the scheme required exercise of
option within the period specified under the scheme and on
failure, it shall be deemed that employees have opted for the
pension scheme.
It is indicated that petitioners submitted option for CPF
within stipulated time of three months from the date of
notification, however, it is claimed that the Dean has failed to
forward the option to the Administrative Officer of the University.
Consequently, the petitioners were considered as deemed to have
opted for pension scheme.
(4 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
For the plea that option exercised by the petitioners, was not
accepted, reliance has been placed on document dated 25.8.2014
(Annex.2). Further material has been produced i.e. list of those,
who had opted for CPF scheme (Annex.3) and it is claimed that as
their names don't figure in the said list, they shall be deemed to
have opted for pension scheme. Thereafter, reliance has been
placed on the pension payment orders issued to the petitioners.
It is then indicated that suddenly by order dated 01.08.2019,
payment of pension to the petitioners was stopped on the ground
that they had exercised option for CPF, which could not have been
changed.
The respondents relied on communication dated 02.07.2019
issued by the State and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was
claimed that the decision of the State was not informed and that
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court was not applicable to the
petitioners.
Based on the above submission, it was claimed that the
action of the respondents in passing the order dated 01.08.2019
was illegal and void as the same was passed without providing any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as such the same was in
violation of principles of natural justice.
It is further claimed that though the petitioners had opted
for CPF but their options were not accepted and they were treated
as pension optees pursuant to the notification dated 17.8.1991,
the petitioners started getting pension from the date of their
retirement and are receiving the same for over 10 to 15 years and
as such the action of the respondents being arbitrary deserves to
(5 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
be set aside. Based on the above submissions, prayer was made
to set aside the order dated 01.08.2019.
Reply to the writ petitions has been filed by the University
inter alia indicating that petitioners were initially appointed in the
University of Udaipur and on creation of new university after
bifurcation, they were transferred to Rajasthan Agriculture
University, Bikaner, and finally retired from Maharana Pratap
University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur ('the MPUAT').
It is submitted that the claim for grant of pension to the
University employees was implemented by the Vice-Chancellor by
issuing notification dated 17.08.1991 and all employees, who were
in service on 01.01.1990 were required to exercise their option in
writing either for pension scheme or for continuance under the
existing CPF scheme, within three months from the date of
notification and on failure to do the same, it was deemed that they
have opted for pension scheme.
It is asserted that when the petitioners were in Rajasthan
Agriculture University, Bikaner, in the year 1991, they opted for
CPF scheme and have placed the options exercised by them as
Annex.R-3/1 in SBCWP No.12154/2019, which petition has been
filed by six petitioners. It is contended that the option once
exercised, irrespective of the alleged inaction on part of the then
University, was final. Whereafter, in the year 1999, the Rajasthan
Agriculture University, Bikaner, was bifurcated and the respondent
- University was created.
The Board of Management of the respondent - University by
its Resolution dated 07.12.2000, resolved that the existing
employees of the University, who had exercised their option for
(6 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
CPF / Pension Scheme, as the case may be, be allowed to exercise
revised option upto 31.03.2001 and pursuant to that, notification
dated 22/25/1/2001 was issued. The petitioners applied for re-
option for pension scheme and the same was accepted by the
University.
It is then indicated that as the respondent - University is an
autonomous body constituted under the provisions of the Act and
is dependent on the State Government qua the financial matters
on account of inability to generate sufficient funds to meet its
expenditure, the State Government by its order dated 03.06.2011
disapproved the decision of re-option given by the University and
directed the University to change and treat the employees as per
the options given by them initially. The University resolved to
withdraw its Resolution granting option.
The orders were challenged before this Court, whereby, by
judgment dated 05.04.2012, the petitions were allowed and the
University was directed to pay pension / family pension to the
employees. The said judgment was upheld by the Division Bench.
However, in an appeal filed by the State and the University,
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. A.N. Mathur &
Ors.: (2014) 13 SCC 531 set aside the Division Bench & Single
Judge judgments and it was held that employee shall be treated
as per the option form initially submitted. Consequently, as the
petitioners, who had initially opted for CPF, by order dated
01.08.2019,their pension was stopped.
A counter to the reply has been filed by the petitioners inter
alia contending that the University in cases where the option to
opt for CPF were received after due date, have rejected the
(7 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
options of certain employees on account of such delay and those
persons are receiving pension. However, the fact of submitting
options opting for CPF, pursuant to notification dated 17.08.1991
and submitting re-option i.e. changing the option from CPF to
pension pursuant to resolution dated 7.12.2000 have not been
denied.
Further contentions have been raised that even after the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Board of Management in
its meeting held on 24.06.2017 was pleased to grant pension to
the eight petitioners while referring to the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
Whereafter, during pendency of the writ petitions, additional
affidavits have been filed by the petitioners and the University,
pointing out the modus operandi adopted by the University
regarding the employees who had opted for CPF and/or pension at
the relevant time.
Learned counsel for the petitioners made vehement
submissions that the action of the respondents in stopping the
pension by order dated 01.08.2019 is ex-facie illegal and contrary
to the facts as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of A.N. Mathur (supra).
It was submitted that the option forms given by the
petitioners opting for CPF were not in prescribed form as is
evident from the documents placed on record and the same were
not accepted by the University, which aspect is apparent from the
document (Annex.2) indicating the list of employees who have
exercised their option in stipulated time but were not accepted by
the University.
(8 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
It was further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of A.N. Mathur (supra) even while quashing the judgments of
this Court upholding the withdrawal of the scheme dated
07.12.2000, has clarified that if prior to passing the Resolution
dated 07.12.2000 by the Board of Management of the University,
if there was any scheme about payment of pension to the
employees and if some of the employees had opted for the said
scheme, payment of pension to said employees, would not be
affected by virture of the said judgment and as such, the ruse of
judgment relied on by the University, cannot be accepted.
Further submissions were made that the University is
estopped from claiming otherwise after having passed the order
dated 13.10.2017 (Annex.A/3), which order has been passed
considering the Supreme Court judgment holding that the
petitioners are entitled to pension as they had not opted for CPF
pursuant to the notification dated 17.8.1991 (Annex.1) and as
such, the plea sought to be now raised, cannot be countenanced.
It was prayed that the writ petitions be allowed and the order
dated 01.08.2019 be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent - University with equal
vehemence made submissions that admittedly all the petitioners
had opted for CPF pursuant to the notification dated 17.08.1991,
which is evident from the documents produced as Annex.R-3/1
within time, there was no requirement under the notification to
accept the said options. Further, in case, the petitioners had not
opted for CPF, when in the year 2000, re-options were invited,
there was no occasion for the petitioners to re-opt for the pension
(9 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
scheme, which re-option was done by the petitioners as is
evidence from the document (Annex.R-3/3).
It is submitted that once the Supreme Court in its judgment
in the case of A.N. Mathur (supra) had come to the conclusion that
the consent of the State Government, who is ultimately going to
be burdened with the financial liability relating to payment of
retirement benefits, the University could not act without the
approval of the State, and that in the present cases also, after
passing of the Resolution dated 24.06.2017 and order dated
13.10.2017, once the State by its communication dated 1/2.7.19
required the University to act based on the option given by the
petitioners, the order dated 01.08.2019, was rightly passed and,
therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
The submissions made that the plea raised by the petitioners
that as the order dated 13.10.2017 has been passed by the
University, irrespective of the fact that the amount would not be
paid by the State Government, the University is estopped from the
same, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the aspect already
stands covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court, wherein,
the resolutions passed were taken as overruled by the State. It
was prayed that the petitions be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The erstwhile Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner,
issued notification dated 17.08.1991 (Annex.1) implementing
pension scheme for the employees of the University. The relevant
portion of the notification reads as under:-
(10 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
"Thus all employees who were in service on
1.1.1990 shall have to exercise their option in writing,
either for the pension scheme under these regulations
or for continuance under the existing C.P.F. Scheme,
within 3 months from the date of notification of this
provision and shall submit the same to the Comptroller,
Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner in the
prescribed form. The existing employees who do not
exercise option within the period specified under these
regulations shall be 'deemed to have opted' for the
pension scheme. Option once exercised shall be final
and irrevocable."
A perusal of the above would indicate that the option was to
be exercised by the employees in writing either for the pension
scheme or for continuance under the existing CPF scheme within 3
months from the date of notification and those who don't exercise
option within period specified under the regulations, shall be
deemed to have opted for the pension scheme and that option
once exercised shall be final and irrevocable.
Admittedly, the petitioners opted for CPF as is evident from
the documents filed as Annex.R-3/1, one such option exercised by
petitioner - A.S. Jhala, reads as under:-
"Instructional Dean
College of Dairy Science
Udaipur.
IDP/CDS/91
Dt. - 23-10-91
Dean
D.S.
Udaipur,
Sub:- Regarding option of pension benefits
Sir,
This is to submit that I want to continue my
contributory provident fund account No.4496 as such
and do not want to opt for pension benefits.
Submitted for necessary action & information.
Yours Faithfully
(11 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
Estt. sd/
sd/ A.S. Jhala
23.10.91 Dairy"
The other options are almost similar except that they have
been addressed in two cases to the Registrar. Whereafter, by
notification dated 20.01.2001 22/25/1/2001, the MPUAT, based on
the Board of Management Resolution dated 7.12.2000 sought re-
option from the existing employees of the University, who had
exercised option for CPF/pension scheme, as the case may be, in
the year 1990 in accordance with notification dated 17.8.1991.
Pursuant thereto, all the petitioners gave forms of re-option
filed as Annex.R-3/3, which reads as under:-
"FORM OF RE-OPTION
In pursuance of Regulation 4 of Pension Regulation, 1990
and BOM Resolution No. MPUAT/BOM-1/2000- 1/8 dated
7.12.2000 of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture &
Technology, Udaipur, I Shri Dr. Akling Singh Jhala S/o Shri
Roop Singh Jhala designation Asstt. Professor opted in
accordance with the Notification No.
Pension/RAJAU/C/97/F.75/3668-768 dated 17.8.91 for
provident fund are hereby re-opted the pensionary benefits.
eSa] blds }kjk] viuk fodYi isU'ku Q.M ifjykHk gsrq nsrk gw¡A
(Strike out whichever is not applicable)
I hereby agree to abide by the aforesaid regulation.
Witness Signature sd/
Signature sd/ Date 23-2-2001
Date 23-2-2001 Name in Full- Dr. Akling Singh Jhala
(In Block Letters)
Name in full - Dr. G.K. Mathur Designation Asstt Professor
(In Block letters)
Designation -Asstt Professor Office Dept of Dairy & Foodtech
College of Dairy &
Food Science Udaipur
Office - Dept of Dairy & Food
Tech College of Dairy &
Food Science Udaipur
ACCEPTED
COUNTERSIGNED
Sd/-
(12 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
Sd/
DEAN
COLLEGE OF DAIRY & FOOD SCIENCE
UDAIPUR
(Dated signature of the officer with seal)
sd/
COMPTROLLER
MAHARANA PRATAP Univ. of Agri. & Tech.
UDAIPUR"
A perusal of the option exercised by the petitioners as well
as form of re-option, doesn't leave any manner of doubt that they
initially opted to continue to remain in CPF scheme and when the
re-option was sought, in most categorical terms indicated that
they had opted for provident fund pursuant to the notification
dated 17.8.1991 and were re-opting for pensionary benefits.
The very fact that the petitioners had indicated that they had
opted for provident fund under the notification dated 17.8.1991
and were re-opting for pensionary benefits, reinforces the fact
that they had initially opt to remain in the CPF scheme only.
So far as the plea raised that the option exercised by the
petitioners were not accepted by the University purportedly on the
ground that the same were not in the form as annexed with the
notification dated 17.8.1991, has apparently no sanction in terms
of the notification dated 17.8.1991, which in case the option was
made within the prescribed time i.e. 3 months, was nowhere
required to be accepted by the respondents and as admittedly the
option was exercised by the petitioners within three months of the
date of notification dated 17.8.1991, it cannot be said that the
petitioners have not opted for CPF scheme pursuant to the
notification dated 17.8.1991. In fact, on the other hand, in case
(13 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
the option was given by the employee and was not accepted, the
same was required to be specifically rejected.
As already indicated hereinbefore, the submissions made in
the form of re-option filed as Annex.R-3/3 reinforces and
reiterates the option position, wherein, the petitioners have clearly
asserted that they had opted for the CPF scheme and were
re-opting the pensionary benefits.
The said resolution of the MPUAT dated 7.12.2000, when was
not accepted by the State Government, the same came to be
challenged before this Court, which accepted writ petitions, the
special appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench, however,
the Supreme Court in the case of A.N. Mathur (supra) referring to
the provisions of Section 38 and 39 of the Rajasthan Agriculture
University Udaipur Act, 2000, and requirement of assent of the
Chancellor before affecting the change in the scheme with regard
to payment of retiral benefits to its employees, inter alia observed
and directed as under:-
"28. For the aforestated reasons, in our opinion, the
order dated 3-6-2011 passed by the appellant,
whereby both the resolutions passed by the University
in relation to giving options to its employees for
changing the Contributory Provident Fund scheme to
the Pension Scheme, is absolutely just and legal. We
are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was not
correct while quashing and setting aside the order
dated 3-6-2011 passed by the appellant-State of
Rajasthan.
29. ......
30. So far as the submission with regard to violation
of the principles of natural justice is concerned, in our
opinion, by not giving hearing to the concerned
employees, the action of the University would not
become void. Violation of one of the principles of
(14 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
natural justice would make the action voidable and not
void.
31. Let us see as to what would happen if the
University gives notices to all the employees calling
upon them to show cause as to why the option
exercised by them should not be cancelled so as to
restore the original scheme of the Contributory
Provident Fund. Even after considering the replies of
the employees, the question is whether the University
can continue to give pension to the employees?
Answer to the question would be in the negative. If
issuance of show cause notice is a mere formality, in
our opinion, that would not affect the decision taken by
the University in pursuance of the order dated 3-6-
2011 because the order dated 3-6-2011 passed by the
appellant-State is absolutely legal and by virtue of the
said order, the resolutions dated 7-12-2000 and 18-12-
2009 passed by the University have been quashed.
32. In view of the above circumstances, we are of
the view that even if the employees were not given
any notice, the final decision taken by the University is
not bad in law.
33. In the aforestated circumstances, we quash and
set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which has
confirmed the judgment delivered by the learned single
Judge. The order dated 3-6-2011 passed by the
appellant-State shall operate and the employees shall
be given retiral benefits as per the Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme which was in force prior to 7-
12-2000. So far as the retired employees are
concerned, they must have been paid pension in
pursuance of the judgment delivered by the Division
Bench of the High Court. As all the appeals have been
allowed, some financial adjustments will have to be
made and possibly there would be some recovery from
some of the employees. We clarify that upon overall
adjustment of the entire amount, if any employee has
to return any amount to the University, as a special
case, no demand shall be raised by the University in
view of the fact that the employees must have retired
(15 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
long back and they must have adjusted their financial
affairs upon knowing the fact that they had a regular
income of pension. We also clarify that if prior to
passing the resolution dated 7-12-2000 by the Board
of Management of the University, if there was any
scheme about payment of pension to its employees
and if some of the employees had opted for the said
scheme, payment of pension to such employees would
not be affected by virtue of this judgment."
Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the orders passed by the
State Government setting aside the resolutions of the University
providing for re-option, it was held that even if the employees
were not given any notice, the final decision taken by the
University is not bad in law and directed that upon overall
adjustment of the entire amount, if any employee has to return
any amount to the University, as a special case, no demand shall
be raised by the University in view of the fact that the employees
must have retired long back and they must have adjusted their
financial affairs.
The relevant part of the judgment, which is being relied on
by the petitioners, reads as under:-
"We also clarify that if prior to passing the
resolution dated 7-12-2000 by the Board of
Management of the University, if there was any
scheme about payment of pension to its employees
and if some of the employees had opted for the said
scheme, payment of pension to such employees would
not be affected by virtue of this judgment."
The Supreme Court despite quashing of the resolution dated
17.12.2000 and the options exercised under it, observed that if
some of the employees had opted for any scheme about payment
(16 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
of pension prior to passing of the resolution dated 07.12.2000,
payment of pension to such employees would not be affected.
The petitioners seek to rely on the default clause i.e. those
not exercising option would deem to have opted for pension, in
notification dated 17.8.1991 to fall within the said exception
provided by the Supreme Court, however, as noticed hereinbefore,
the action of the petitioners is very clear and specific, not only
once but twice, wherein, they had initially opted for CPF and
thereafter reiterated the same by re-opting for pension scheme
and as such the submissions made seeking to fall within exception
apparently has no basis.
The reliance placed by the petitioners on the document
(Annex.2) also apparently has no support from either the material
produced by the petitioners and/or their subsequent action in
specifically re-opting for pensionary benefits instead of CPF
scheme.
Heavy reliance placed by the petitioners on order dated
13.10.2017 (Annex. A/13), whereby, the Comptroller, based on
the recommendation of the Finance Committee, ordered that
petitioners would be entitled to payment of pension in light of
judgement in the case of A.N. Mathur (supra), is misplaced.
Apparently, the recommendation of the Finance Committee and
the order of the Comptroller were de hors the available
documents, which led to passing of the direction dated
01/02.07.2019 (Annex. R-3/6) by the State, relevant part thereof
reads as under: -
"mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr lanfHkZr i= ds lanHkZ esa ys[k gS fd
isa'ku ;kstuk] 1990 ds vUrxZr fo'ofo|ky; ds 8 dkfeZdksa }kjk
(17 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
ih-,Q- ysus dk fodYi le;kof/k esa izLrqr dj fn;k x;k FkkA
bl laca/k esa orZeku esa Lokeh ds'kokuUn d`f"k fo'ofo|ky;]
chdkusj ;k egkjk.kk izrki d`f"k fo'ofo|ky;] mn;iqj }kjk dksbZ
[email protected];xr fLFkfr Hkh bafxr dh tkrh gS rks Hkh D;ksafd
bu vkB dkfeZdksa }kjk viuk fodYi ns fn;k x;k FkkA ,slh
fLFkfr esa deemed to have opted for pension fu;r
le;kof/k esa fodYi izLrqr ugha djus okys dkfeZdksa ds fy, gh
ykxw FkkA
izdj.k foRr foHkkx dh jk; gsrq fHktok;k x;kA foRr
foHkkx us ijke'kZ fn;k gS fd ek- mPpre U;k;ky;] ubZ
fnYyh }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj ,d ckj fodYi i= fn;s
tkus ds ckn dksbZ ifjoZru ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS] ds vuqlkj
gh bu deZpkfj;ksa ds izdj.k esa ,d ckj fn;s x;s fodYi esa dksbZ
ifjorZu ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vr% foRr foHkkx dh jk; ds lanHkZ esa funsZ'kkuqlkj ys[k gS
fd fo'ofo|ky; ds vkB dkfeZdksa dks muds isa'ku ;kstuk] 1990
ds vUrxZr fn;s x;s fodYi i= ¼ih-,Q- ysus ds½ ds vuqlkj
vfoyEc dk;Zokgh dj vuqPNsnksa dh ikyuk fjiksVZ 'kh?kz fHktokus
dk Je djkoasA"
It would be noticed from above that the State came to the
conclusion that as the 8 employees had opted for CPF in terms of
the notification dated 17.8.1991, they were not entitled to grant of
pension, which conclusion as determined hereinbefore, is based on
admitted documents. The direction of the State has led to passing
of the order impugned dated 01.08.2019, which cannot be faulted.
The plea raised regarding violation of principles of natural
justice, in the view of observations made in the case of A.N.
Mathur (supra), wherein in selfsame matter in para 32 of the
judgement it has been laid down, after analysis, that even if the
employees were not given any notice, the final decision taken by
the University is not bad in law, also stands squarely covered by
the said determination made by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(18 of 18) [CW-10248/2021]
The feeble submission made that as the University has
passed resolved to pay the pension, irrespective of the fact that
the State has not approved of the same, it was bound to pay the
pension to the petitioners, has no basis in law, as once the action
of the University has been found de hors the material available
with it, the petitioners can't plead estoppel, in this regard."
In view of the above discussion, as apparently the cases of
the petitioners are squarely covered by the judgment in the case
of A.N. Mathur (supra) and doesn't fall within exception provided
in the said judgment, inasmuch as, the petitioners by re-opting for
pensionary benefits instead of CPF under the Resolution dated
07.12.2000, have reiterated the option of CPF exercised by them
pursuant to notification dated 17.08.1991.
Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are
dismissed. However, the petitioners shall also be governed by the
directions as given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.N.
Mathur (supra), wherein, directions have been given not to raise
any demand from any employee on account of quashing of their
option.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
Sumit Sharma /-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
