Tripura High Court
Prof. Arunoday Saha vs The Tripura University on 7 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 TRI 265
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
Page 1 of 20
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) No. 1264/2017
Prof. Arunoday Saha,
S/O. Late Abani Mohan Saha,
First Vice Chancellor of Tripura University
(A Central University), a resident of Shibnagar,
P.O. Agartala College, P.S. East Agartala,
District-West Tripura, PIN-799004.
----Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Tripura University
(A Central University),
represented by its Registrar,
P.O. Surjyamaninagar University Post Office,
P.S. Amtali, PIN-799022, West Tripura.
2. The Vice Chancellor,
Tripura University (A Central University),
P.O. Surjyamaninagar University Post Office,
P.S. Amtali, PIN-799022, West Tripura.
3. The Registrar,
Tripura University
(A Central University),
P.O. Surjyamaninagar University Post Office,
P.S. Amtali, PIN-799022, West Tripura.
4. The Union of India,
represented by the Secretary to the
Ministry of Human Resource Development(MHRD),
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.
5. The University Grant Commission,
represented by its Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
----Respondent(s).
For appellant(s) : Mr.P. Roy Barman,
Mr.S. Bhattacharjee,
Mr.K. Nath,
Advocates.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.B.R.Bhattacharjee,
Sr. Advocate,
Mr.P.K.Pal
Mr.A.R.Mukherjee,
Mr.S. Datta,
Advocates.
Page 2 of 20
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAY RASTOGI
Judgment reserved on : 23.04.2018
Judgment pronounced on : 07.05.2018
JUDGMENT
By the instant writ petition the petitioner who retired as a Vice Chancellor of the University has challenged the Memorandum dated 14.06.2017 and its consequential action in furtherance thereto dt.30.06.2017 holding that the petitioner is not entitled for pension and retiral benefits under General Provident Fund Scheme as he failed to tender his option in terms of the Notification dt. 03.04.2006 to be furnished by the employees(teaching & non-teaching), who joined service in the University before 01.01.1997 and are willing to switch over to the General Provident Fund Scheme calling option to be submitted to the Registrar of the University by 17.04.2006 positively. Indisputably, the petitioner failed to furnish the option and in furtherance thereof order has been passed by the respondent authority dt. 30.06.2017 for his fixation under the provision of Central Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity-cum-Pension Scheme which is not acceptable to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case, which may be relevant for the present purpose, are that the petitioner is basically a teacher joined service on 24.11.1978 in P.G. Centre of Calcutta University (State University), stationed at Agartala, Tripura. Indisputably the petitioner was member of the CPF Scheme. By the act of the parliament the Tripura University Act, 2006 was enacted on 10.01.2007 and became effective from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, i.e. 11th Page 3 of 20 January 2007 and in terms of Sec. 4 on and from the date of commencement of the Act 2006 the service condition of the employees, who are employed by the Tripura University immediately before the commencement of this Act absorbed on the same terms and conditions and the same rights and privileges as was admissible prior to the enactment of the Act of 2006 stands protected and Sec. 4 Clause (d) of the Act 2006, which is relevant for the purpose, is reproduced hereunder:
"4.(d) every person employed by the Tripura University immediately before the commencement of this Act shall hold his office or service in the University by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matters as he would have held the same if this Act had not been enacted, and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or until such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions are duly altered by the Statutes:
...... ....... ....... ....... ...... ...... ......."
3. Prior to the enactment of the Act 2006, the University in its 139th Syndicate meeting held on 03.03.2006 resolved that the University Grants Commission asked option from all the eligible officials who joined the University before 01.01.1997 for switching over to GPF Scheme as per the Provident Fund and retirement benefits of the employees of the Tripura University Rules 1998. The proceedings of 139th Syndicate meeting held on 03.03.2006, which came to be notified on 06.03.2006, Agenda No.210 is relevant for the purpose, which is reproduced hereunder:
"Resolved that the Registrar be requested to obtain option from all eligible officials who joined University before 1.1.1997, for switching over to GPF Scheme as per the Provident Fund and retirement benefits of the employees of the Tripura University Rules 1998."Page 4 of 20
4. In furtherance to the resolution of the Syndicate of which reference has been made, the Registrar of the Tripura University issued a Notification dt. 03.04.2006 calling option from such eligible employees who were members of the Provident Fund and retirement benefits of the employees of the Tripura University Rules, 1998 and who have joined the University before 01.01.1997 and willing to switch over to General Provident Fund Scheme under the aforesaid rules, may submit their option in the office of the Registrar by 17.04.2006 positively. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was unaware of the notification published by the Registrar under its authority delegated to him by the Syndicate in its recommendation dt.06.03.2006 (Annexure-C). Indisputably the petitioner failed to submit his option by 17.04.2006 and as informed to this Court that the option was submitted by the petitioner to switch over to the GPF Scheme on 04.10.2007. It may be noticed that the option invited from eligible employees pursuant to notification dt. 03.04.2006 to be submitted in the Office of the Registrar, Tripura University by 17.04.2006 positively was never extended at any later point of time.
5. The petitioner served as a Vice Chancellor of the Tripura University (Central University) from 02.07.2007 to 17.02.2013 and after completion of his term as a Vice Chancellor he worked as a professor in the department of economics for few days and retired on attaining superannuation on 28.02.2013. While the petitioner was in the office as a Vice Chancellor of the University a note was prepared by the subordinate officer that the University has been converted from the State University to a Central University on 02.07.2007 and the date which was earlier notified for calling option from the employees to be Page 5 of 20 submitted positively by 17.04.2006, it happened that six employees did not exercise their option within the specified period including the petitioner & his wife seeking approval for enabling them to be the member of GPF Scheme and the liabilities to the State University towards their retirement benefits be transferred to the Central University as per rules dt.25.11.2011.
6. The petitioner himself as a Vice Chancellor amongst those six persons, who were left out from exercising their option, invited note from the Deputy Finance Officer to advice as to what action to be taken. From the note of the Deputy Finance Officer dt.16.12.2011, it is eminently clear that the circular of the Government of India of which reference has been made dt.23.07.1996 was confined to Scientific and Technical Personnel working in the Department of Electronics, Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Space and for limited staff of Scientific and Technical personnel as a special case the Government of India invited option from them for switching over to the pension scheme. It further reveals that the petitioner called for the meeting of the Finance Committee held on 18.11.2011, chaired by the petitioner himself as a Vice Chancellor of the University, and one of the Agenda was for acceptance of GPF option exercised by the six employees of the University after conversion resolved that the matter be settled by the University within the framework of relevant Government of India rules under intimation to the University Grants Commission.
7. When the matter was sent to the University Grants Commission in terms of the resolution of the University, chaired by the petitioner himself as a Vice Chancellor, as it reveals from the letter dt. Page 6 of 20 24.10.2014 indicating names of the six teachers of the University, who did not exercise their option before 01.07.2007 for switching over from CPF to GPF Scheme including petitioner, the University Grants Commission in reference to letter dt. 24.10.2014 vide communication dt.10.09.2015(Annexure-G) informed that the UGC is not agreed to accord ex-post facto approval for switching over from CPF to GPF-cum- Pension Scheme for such employees who did not opt for the same before it became a Central University. Accordingly, proposal of the University was not acceded to and directed the University to take corrective measures as per rules under intimation to UGC.
8. At the same time it may be relevant to note that the University Grants Commission by its Office Memorandum dt.8/9.12.2009 while conversion of Tripura University to a Central University put certain conditions regarding fixation of their pay scales and its applicability with the CPF pension scheme, as the case may be. It may be relevant to quote hereunder para-3(iii) and para 7.6, which is in reference to pension of the employees (teaching and non-teaching) :
"3(iii) Provisions of the relevant sections of the Tripura University Act, 2006(No.9 of 2007), the scales of pay of non-teaching employees of Tripura University as revised by the Govt. of Tripura in pursuant to Vth CPC at the AICPI 1510 with effect from 1.1.1996, Govt. of India's order No.12 below rule 22 of Fundamental Rules on fixation of pay of State Government employees on their appointment in the Central Government on or after 1.1.1996 etc."
"7.6 Pension
(i) The employees (teaching and non-teaching) who were in the service of Tripura University as on 1.7.2007 and were governed by the CPF Scheme will not be eligible for switch over to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. They will continue to be governed by the CPF Scheme or may opt for New Pension Scheme."
9. The UGC in its guidelines also clearly mentioned that the employees (teaching and non-teaching) who were in the service of Tripura University as on 01.07.2007 and governed by the CPF Scheme Page 7 of 20 will not be eligible to switch over to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme and will continue to be governed by the CPF scheme or may opt for new Pension Scheme. Indisputably as per the guidelines of University Grants Commission and decision of the University of Tripura, a notification was published on 03.04.2006 inviting option from the eligible employees, who joined the University of Tripura before 01.01.1997 and willing to switch over to the General Provident Fund Scheme under the aforesaid rules to submit their option in the office of the Registrar of the University by 17.04.2006 positively, failing which the employees (teaching and non-teaching) as a logical corollary would continue to be the member of the CPF Scheme.
10. The petitioner on retirement as a Vice Chancellor of the Tripura University (A Central University), his retirement benefits were not disbursed despite a letter being sent on 13.08.2013 and his correspondence to the pensionary benefits not paid to him, on 17.09.2013 the drawing and disbursing officer of the University sent a cheque dt.16.09.2013 for a sum of Rs.19,52,518/- on account of final payment of General Provident Fund with interest to the petitioner and when the cheque was presented to the M.B.B. College Branch of the State Bank of India it was returned to the petitioner along with a memo in which it was stated that the cheque was returned for the following reason :
"Amount drawn in excess of validity of cheque (10,00,000/- & under)".
11. At this stage he approached this Court in the first round of litigation by filing of a writ petition W.P.(C) No.46/2014 to examine as Page 8 of 20 to whether the respondents were justified in withholding the payment of the petitioner, which as alleged by him was due and for which a cheque dt. 16.09.2013 was sent to him and how far the respondents were justified in withholding the payment and that round of litigation was decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dt.12.08.2014 with a direction to make the payment along with interest to the petitioner, but that was reviewed and admissibility for GPF Scheme was examined.
12. Undisputedly since the petitioner never submitted his option in terms of the notification dt. 03.04.2006 before 17.04.2006 positively, his later decision while being a Vice Chancellor was in clear contravention of the Scheme and Rules and was not permissible under the law. Accordingly, he was informed by the Tripura University (Central University) vide letter dt. 14.06.2017 (Annexure-5) why he was not eligible to continue to be governed by GPF Scheme assigning cogent reasons.
13. I consider it appropriate to quote hereunder the reason holding its inadmissibility to grant him benefits under GPF Scheme :
"To, Prof. Arunoday Saha, Formar Vice-Chancellor, TU. (Retd. Professor of Tripura University), Shibnagar, Old College Road, P.O:- Agartala College-799004, Tripura West Sub:- Pension and other retirement benefits granted under GPF scheme- admissibility thereof.
Sir, In pursuance of the resolution taken by the Syndicate in its 139th Meeting held on 03.03.2006 that the employees of the University be given the opportunity of switching over to GPF cum Pension Scheme, the Tripura University vide its Notification No.F.1(48)-TU/93 (Vol-II) dated 03.04.2006 invited options from all the regular and eligible employees who were appointed prior to 01.01.1997 in a prescribed format by 17.04.2006 for implementation of GPF Scheme under ' The provident Fund and Retirement Benefits of the Employees of Tripura University Rules, 1998'.Page 9 of 20
2. Tripura State University was converted into a Central University on 02.07.2007.
3. It is revealed from the records that you had not exercised any option for the GPF Scheme within the stipulated date and thus you had chosen to continue with the CPF Scheme.
4. Subsequently, bypassing the Notification ibid dated 03.04.2006 you had exercised option for GPF scheme on 03.10.2007 i.e. after the cut-off date, by taking resort to an Office Memorandum bearing No. 4/1/87 -P&PW (PIC-II) dated 23.07.1996 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioner's welfare, Govt. of India which was applicable only to the Scientific and Technical personnel working in the Departments of Electronics, Atomic Energy and space, Govt. of India while you were holding the post of Vice-Chancellor of this University during the period from 02.07.2007 to 17.02.2013 and on the basis of said option pension and other retirement benefits under GPF Scheme were settled and disbursed to you following your retirement on 28.02.2013.
5. By an Office Memorandum bearing No.F.7-1/2007 (CU/ICRC) dated 08.12.2009 the University Grants Commission (UGC) categorically made it clear in paragraph 7.6(i) that "the employees ( teaching and non-teaching) who were in the service of Tripura university as on 01.07.2007 and were governed by the CPF scheme will not be eligible for switch over to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. They will continue to be governed by the CPF scheme or may opt for New Pension Scheme".
6. Thus, on the face of UGC's said order dated 08.12.2009 settlement of your pension and other retirement benefits under GPF Scheme stands inadmissible.
7. Further, C & AG's Audit team, Tripura, in course of their audit for the period from 2011-12 to 2012-13 has raised objection for allowing conversion from CPF scheme to GPF-cum-Pension scheme to those employees who were governed by the CPF scheme as on 01.07.2007, in violation of the UGC's instruction as mentioned above in para 5. However, in view of the audit observation, the University requested UGC vide its letter no TU/FIN/UGC/01 dated 24.10.2014 to consider and convey expost facto approval for allowing switching over from CPF to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme in respect of all cases including yours. But, the UGC has declined to accord expost facto approval for such switching over and instructed the University to take corrective measures as per rules under intimation to them vide their letter no F.19-5/2003 (CU) dated 10.09.2015.
8. In the given situation as stated above, I am to inform you that as a corrective measure as per UGC's instruction, the University authority has decided to convert your pension under GPF-cum- pension scheme to pension admissible under CPF-cum-Gratuity- cum -Pension Scheme with effect from the month of June, 2017, and to recover the retirement benefits wrongly paid to your. This letter is issued with the approval of Hon'ble Vice- Chancellor, Tripura University.
Yours Faithfully SD/-
(O.S.Adhikari) Registrar,
14. In furtherance vide order dt.30.06.2017 sanction was accordingly accorded to him being a member of the CPF Scheme and Page 10 of 20 retiral benefits were sanctioned to the petitioner, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition.
15. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Syndicate in its 139th meeting of the Tripura University held on 03.03.2006 (Annexure-C) resolved that the Registrar be requested to obtain option from all eligible officials who joined the University before 01.01.1997 for switching over to GPF Scheme as per the Provident Fund and retirement benefits of the employees of the Tripura University Rules, 1998 and there was no such time fixed by the Syndicate in its resolution in calling for the option from the eligible employees, who joined the University before 01.01.1997 and wanted to switch over to GPF Scheme and the Registrar of the University exceeded in his jurisdiction & in contravention to the resolution of the Syndicate in its notification dt. 03.04.2006 limited the option to be furnished by 17.04.2006 positively, which according to the petitioner is exceeding to the Syndicate's resolution and the date notified by the Registrar in its notification dt. 03.04.2006 calling for option to be furnished in the Office of the Registrar by 17.04.2006 positively is beyond authority and competence of the Registrar and in the given facts and circumstances the option which was submitted by the petitioner on 04.10.2007 be considered to be inconformity with the resolution of the Syndicate dt.03.03.2006, and was arbitrarily denied to switch over to GPF Scheme by the respondents and their action is per se arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.
16. Counsel further submits that at a relevant point of time in the year 2011 the decision was taken by the University keeping in view the Office Memorandum of the Government of India dt.23.07.1996 Page 11 of 20 which is the policy decision in granting liberty to such employees who do not exercise their option to the limited period granting them permission to opt for switch over to pension scheme of the date of conversion and since only six employees were left enabling them to join GPF Scheme, a benevolent decision was taken by the University including that of the petitioner and accordingly once it was approved it tantamount to ex- post facto sanction of the option which was furnished by six employees including the petitioner subsequent to the date notified under the notification by the Registrar in its notification dt. 03.04.2006 to be furnished by 17.04.2006 positively and in the absence of the later resolution of the University is recalled or rescinded decision of the respondents in withdrawal of the option and to consider the petitioner to be a member of CPF Scheme is highly improper and violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner protected u/Art.14 & 21 of the Constitution.
17. Counsel further submits that in the first round of litigation he was treated to be a member of GPF Scheme and the arrear which was paid to him by the drawing and disbursing officer through a cheque for a sum of Rs.19,52,518/- was not credited and this Court came very heavily upon respondents deciding his earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) NO. 46/2014 vide judgment dt. 12.08.2014 and the respondents cannot be held justified in taking a U-turn and holding that the GPF Scheme introduced by the respondents was not admissible to the petitioner and it needs interference of this Court.
18. Reply has been filed by the respondents and it has been stated that only six employees who failed to opt in terms of the notification dt.03.04.2006 calling upon option from the employees of the Page 12 of 20 University, who joined the University before 01.01.1997 to submit their option by 17.04.2006 positively and the petitioner as a Vice Chancellor convened meeting of the Finance Committee as Chairman of the Committee held on 25.11.2011 with a special Agenda for acceptance of GPF option exercised by the left out six employees including the petitioner of the University and resolved that the matter be settled by the University within the framework of relevant Government of India Rules under intimation to the UGC as there was no final approval by the University under its resolution dt. 25.11.2011 and the Government of India guidelines on which the petitioner placed reliance and paid emphasis dt. 23.07.1996, it was only confined to Scientific and Technical personnel working in the Department of Electronics, Department of Atomic Energy and Department of space and only for this limited purpose the scheme was opened by the Government of India and one time option was permitted to be exercised by the members of the Scientific and Technical personnel of the respective departments referred to submit their option for switching over to the pension scheme which may not be applicable and relevant for the purpose of the petitioner.
19. At the same time counsel further submits that even the Office Memo dt.09.12.2009 the University Grants Commission while prescribing the scale of pay for teaching and non-teaching employees of the Tripura University and para 7.6 refers to pension indicated that the employees(teaching & non-teaching) towards service of the University of Tripura as on 01.07.2007 shall be governed by the CPF Scheme and not be eligible for switch over to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme keeping in view the mandate of the Tripura University Act, 2006 and Sec.4(b) Page 13 of 20 clearly envisaged that while it was converted to a Central University under the Act 2006, the service condition of the employees including their rights and privileges including pension, leave, gratuity and provident fund etc. would remain the same and shall continue unless and until employment is terminated or altered by such Act.
20. Indisputably on the date Act 2006 came into force by that time the petitioner had not submitted his option and was a member of the CPF Scheme. In the given circumstances he was not qualified to opt the GPF Scheme under his later option submitted on 04.10.2007 and the decision of the Finance Committee of which reference has been made of which he himself chaired as a Vice Chancellor speaks volumes about his participation in the decision making process which apparently was in contravention of the GPF Scheme introduced by the respondents.
21. In the given facts and circumstances the respondents have not committed any error in treating the petitioner to be a member of the CPF Scheme and released all the retiral benefits which he was entitled for and being in its competence needs no interference of this Court.
22. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the materials available on record.
23. The employees (teaching and non-teaching) of the Tripura University earlier were the member of the CPF Scheme in general and later the General Provident Fund Scheme under the Provident Fund and retirement benefits of the employees of Tripura University Rules 1998 w.e.f. 01.04.2006 was reviewed and the Syndicate in its 139th meeting held on 03.03.2006 (Annexure-C) finally resolved to authorise the Page 14 of 20 Registrar to obtain option from all eligible employees who joined the University before 01.01.1997 for switching over to GPF Scheme as per Provident Fund and retirement benefits of the employees of the Tripura University Rules 1998.
24. In compliance of the authorisation extended to the Registrar of the Tripura University a notification was published on 03.04.2006 inviting option from the eligible employees who joined the University before 01.01.1997 and valid to switch over to General Provident Fund Scheme of the Rules 1998 to submit in the Office of the Registrar of the University by 17.04.2006 positively.
25. All employees submitted their option by 17.04.2006 and the left out six employees including the petitioner who was serving as the Vice Chancellor of the University had not submitted their option for the reasons best known to them. In the instant case the petitioner submitted his option on 04.10.2017 and indisputably the option which was to be furnished by the eligible employees by 17.04.2006 positively was never extended at any later point of time.
26. As regards the ex post facto sanction which the University desired to be obtained from the University Grants Commission that has been specifically rejected by the UGC under its communication dt.10.09.2015 (Annexure-G) with the specific endorsement made that ex post facto approval as desired by the University of Tripura for switching over from CPF to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme for those six employees who did not opt for the said benefit before it became a University after establishing the Tripura University into a Central University is not acceptable and all the instructions issued by the Page 15 of 20 Government of India to be followed by the Tripura University and the proposal of the University cannot be acceded to and the University may take corrective measures as per the rules under intimation to the UGC.
27. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner with a statement of fact that all the six teachers who did not exercise their option before the Act 2006 came into force and became effective by the respondents resorted to initiate recovery from four employees out of six including the petitioner and left two other teachers and they were treated to be the member of the GPF Scheme and no recovery has been initiated by the respondents. This factual statement has been specifically denied by the respondents in its counter and counsel for the respondents under instructions from his client informed to this Court that recovery has been made from all the six employees who did not exercise their option by 17.4.2006 positively including petitioner and recovery has been made from each of them, unfortunately, two out of six died and other than the petitioner no one has come to litigation.
28. A cogent reason has been assigned by the respondents in its self speaking communication dt.14.06.2007 as to why the GPF Scheme is not admissible to the petitioner and in furtherance thereof treating him to be a member of CPF Scheme the retiral benefits to be entitled for has been noticed & released by the respondents pursuant to order dt.30.06.2017.
29. In the given facts and circumstances, if the petitioner failed to submit his option by 17.04.2006 in terms of the notification dt. 03.04.2006 or prior to the Act of 2006 came into force from January, 2007, no such option thereafter was ever called/invited by the Page 16 of 20 respondents and in the absence of express option being invited and exercised by the petitioner to become a member of the GPF Scheme, he continues to be a member of CPF, on retirement from service as a Vice Chancellor of the University he is entitled for the benefits under the CPF Scheme of which he was the maker at the time of his retirement from service.
30. At one point of time, the drawing and disbursing officer because of the influence of the petitioner being the Vice Chancellor of the University sanctioned the arrears treating him to be a member of GPF Scheme and that appears to be an apparent erroneous decision and in the absence of the petitioner became the member of the GPF Scheme, which could not have been possible unless he would have submitted his option within the stipulated time and indisputably he did not switch over to GPF Scheme as prayed for by him by 17.06.2006 and accordingly, this Court finds no error in the decision making process adopted by the respondents in treating the petitioner to be a member of CPF Scheme & released his terminal benefits as a member of CPF under Order dt. 30.06.2017 is in conformity with the mandate of law.
31. The submission of petitioner's counsel that Government of India guidelines dt.01.05.1987 envisage that though the petitioner is a member of the CPF Scheme even if failed to submit option would have deemed to become member of the pension Scheme and accordingly in the instant case as well the petitioner even if has not tendered option keeping in view the para 3.2 of the Office Memorandum of the Government of India dt. 01.05.1987 the petitioner deemed to have switched over the pension scheme. The submission of the petitioner on the face of it is fallacious for the reason that Government of India Page 17 of 20 published its guidelines by Office Memorandum dt.01.05.1987 restricted to the Central Government employees, which is evident from the subject, indicated by the Government of India in its circular/O.M. dt. 01.05.1987 (Annexure-6) may not be of any assistance to the petitioner and the later circular of the Government of India on which further reliance has been placed by the petitioner dt. 23.07.1996(Annexure-E) that was confined to the Scientific and Technical personnel working in the Department of Electronics, Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Space with the conditions of their service extended specifically for the Scientific and Technical personnel may not be any assistance of the petitioner.
32. In the instant case, the University of Tripura took a decision authorising the Registrar in its meeting dt.03.03.2006 (Annexure-C) to obtain option from all eligible employees who joined before 01.01.1997 for switching over to GPF Scheme as per the Provident Fund and retirement benefits of the employees of Tripura University Rules 1998 and in furtherance thereof and under the authority extended to the Registrar a notification was published by him on 03.04.2006 inviting option from all eligible employees, who joined the University before 01.01.1997 and are willing to switch over to GPF Scheme, to submit their option by 17.04.2006 positively. It was never the case of the petitioner that the publication of notification dt. 03.04.2006 was not in his knowledge and the petitioner still kept silent and has not submitted his application if he desires to switch over to GPF Scheme in terms of notification dt.03.04.2006. What is being contended by the petitioner is nothing but an afterthought. More so, a person, who himself served as a Vice Chancellor of the University, at a later stage might have realised Page 18 of 20 that GPF Scheme is more beneficial than CPF Scheme in the changed circumstances, but that cannot be a reason for granting permission for switching over to the GPF Scheme at a later stage when option was not submitted before the stipulated date as prescribed under the notification dt. 03.04.2006.
33. The further submission of the petitioner's counsel that the Registrar exceeded its jurisdiction in putting restriction in calling for option to be furnished by 17.04.2006 positively is without substance for the reasons that the Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 03.03.2006 authorised the Registrar to obtain option from the eligible employees and it cannot be left open for indefinite period and some restriction needs to be put and the Registrar in his wisdom has taken a decision to proceed in terms of the resolution of the Syndicate with a outer limit for submitting option by 17.04.2006 positively under its notification dt. 03.04.2006 cannot be said to be exceeding his jurisdiction as prayed for by the petitioner.
34. The further submission of the petitioner's counsel that the decision of the Finance Committee in its meeting held on 25.11.2011 for acceptance of GPF option exercised by six employees of the University including the petitioner himself in a Committee headed by him as a Vice Chancellor is not open to question. Suffice it to say that the petitioner who himself chaired the Committee and has taken decision for himself, as already stated, one cannot be a judge in his own cause, at the same time the resolution of the Finance Committee was that the matter be settled by the University within the framework of relevant Government of India Rules under intimation to the UGC, in furtherance thereof a letter was sent by the Registrar of the University of Tripura Page 19 of 20 dt.24.10.2014, addressed to the Secretary, University Grants Commission for grant of ex post facto sanction/approval permitting the six employees for switching over from CPF to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, but the University Grants Commission has rejected the request of the University to accord ex post facto approval for switching over the six employees/teachers from CPF to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme as reveals from its communication dt.10.09.2015 (Annexure-G). By a later decision of the UGC the resolution of meeting of the Finance Committee dt. 25.11.2011 stands rescinded and is not enforceable and deserves outright rejection.
35. The further submission of the petitioner's counsel is that six employees who were left out submit their option but the recovery has been made from four employees and two are still continued to be the member of GPF Scheme. The statement of fact is factually incorrect & disputed by the respondents and has informed to this Curt that recovery has been made from all the six employees, who failed to submit their option within the prescribed time including that of the petitioner, but at the same time, even if two have been left out which apparently on the face of is a erroneous decision if the respondents have failed to initiate recovery from two left out employees as alleged, but there shall always be a positive discrimination and if the respondents have failed to discharge its statutory duty in making recovery from rest of the two employees who failed to submit their option within the prescribed time and still enjoying the benefits under GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, the recovery can be made from each of them, but the illegality if has been committed by the respondents in not taking action against such employees, this Court will not like to perpetuate the illegality which the Page 20 of 20 respondents have committed under its inherent jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India, is impermissible and rejected by the UGC in express terms.
Consequently the writ petition is wholly without substance and accordingly dismissed. No cost.
CHIEF JUSTICE Certificate :- All corrections made in the judgment have been incorporated in the judgment asim