Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. A.S. Jhala vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 January, 2022
Author: Arun Bhansali
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
(Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM)
(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.
(Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM)
(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.
(Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM)
(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 (Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM) (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.
(Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM)
(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 (Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM) (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:-
(Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM)
(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
(Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM)
(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/-
(Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM)
(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 (Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM) (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 oLrqfLFkfr@rF;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. (Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM)
(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 /-
(Downloaded on 04/01/2022 at 08:32:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)