Dismissed

Dr.a.v.Patankar v. University Grants Commissione and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2014WP/1573/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to release pension benefits under a WRIC scheme implemented after the petitioner's retirement. The hold-up stemmed from the scheme's exclusion of pre-existing staff deemed non-applicable to the contributory system.

What did the court decide?

The application for issuing a writ of mandamus to quash orders declining pension benefits and directing their release was dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

Dr.a.v.Patankar Vs University Grants Commissione and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1573-01-JT

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1573 OF 2001

¶6

Dr. A	rvind Vishnu Patankar	]
Res	iding at 3C/15, Neelgiri,	]
Deo	nar Baug, Mumbai – 400 008.	]	..Petitioner.
	V/s.
1.	University Grants Commission,	]
	Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,	]
	New Delhi – 110 002.	]
		]
2.	State of Maharashtra	]
	through the Secretary, Higher and	]
	Technical Education Department,	]
	Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.	] ]
3.	University of Mumbai, Vidyanagari,	]
	Kalina, Santacruz (East),	]
	Mumbai -400 098.	]
		]
4.	Western Regional Instrumentation Centre,	]
	through its Director, WRIC Building,	]
	Vidyanagari, Kalina, Santacruz (E),	]
	Mumbai – 400 098.	]	..Respondents.

¶7

1/9

¶8

wp1573-01-JT

¶9

Mr. Mihir Desai for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mrs. Madhubala Kejale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2.

¶11

Mr. Rui Rodriques for Respondent Nos.3 & 4.

¶12

CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶13

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 6TH MARCH, 2014 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 20TH MARCH, 2014

¶14

JUDGMENT (PER A.K. MENON, J.)

¶15

The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to quash and set aside the orders declining to grant pension benefits by Western Regional Instrumentation Center and for direction to any of the four respondents, namely, University Grants Commission, State of Maharashtra, University of Mumbai and Wester Regional Instrumentation Centre, Mumbai to apply the service rules and direct the respondents to release and pay pension with effect from 1^st July, 1992 when the petitioner attained superannuation and also to recover employees contribution fund paid to the petitioner at the time of superannuation from the arrears of pension and continue to pay the pension in respect of the service rendered for Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (T.I.R.F.) and Western Regional Instrumentation Center (WRIC).

¶16

2/9

¶17

wp1573-01-JT

¶18

It is necessary to briefly deal with the facts before dealing with the petition as under:-

¶19

The Petitioner holds a PH.D. in Solid State Physics. In the year 1955, he joined as Research Assistant with Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. In 1960, the Petitioner was sent to University of Newcastle upon where he worked till 1967. In May, 1976 T.I.F.R. assigned to the Petitioner the task of setting up of Western Regional Instrumentation Center / respondent No.4 at Mumbai as a University Institution. The Petitioner worked as Professor and Director of WRIC from 31^st March, 1979 till his retirement on 31^st July, 1992. Meanwhile, in 1985-86 the 3^rd Respondent - University adopted a Pension Scheme for its employees (University Pension Scheme). In view of the fact that the Petitioner shifted to WRIC, he could not avail the benefits under the first University Pension Scheme. On or about 9^th January, 1992 the Petitioner vide a letter of even date addressed to the 1^st Respondent, the Petitioner recorded that he was due for superannuation by the end of July, 1992 and he is given to understand from the 1^st Respondent that WRIC was the responsibility of the 1^st Respondent and enquired about pension benefits of the Petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner contends that the issue of pension remained unresolved, meanwhile the petitioner's name was recommended to the

¶21

3/9

¶22

wp1573-01-JT

¶23

Tertiary Education Commission of Mauritius who were desirous in setting Instrumentation Centre in Mauritius. The petitioner undertook the said assignment from September, 1996 and was gainfully employed till 1^st September, 2001. Vide a letter dated 1^st May, 1992, the Chairman of Respondent No.1 informed the Petitioner that his case was being examined. The implementation of the Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme for the academic and non academic staff of WRIC came into effect from 1^st September, 1995. The relevant provisions of the Scheme relied upon by the Petitioner are reproduced below :-

¶24

“4. The Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme for WRIC staff come in force w.e.f. 1^st August, 1995. One month's time shall be given to the present employees of WRIC to exercise their option for either CPF or Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme which shall be final and binding on the employee. Persons joining WRIC service after the introduction of this scheme shall be entitled to the Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme only.

¶25

5. With the introduction of the Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme, the Centre shall cease to contribute its share of Provident Fund Scheme in respect of those employees who have opted for this scheme.

¶26

6. The deduction towards GPF/CPF shall be sent to the University of Bombay as is being done at present. On retirement, the employee shall be paid GPF/CPF by the University of Bombay while the gratuity and pension dues shall be paid by WRIC. “

¶27

4/9

¶28

wp1573-01-JT

¶29

In March, 1996, UGC conveyed its approval to the Pension Scheme for WRIC. On 15^th January, 1997 WRIC wrote a letter to UGC suggesting that the request made by the Petitioner and one Mr.V.M. Vohra, both of whom retired before 1^st August, 1995 may be considered favourably. In this letter, WRIC observed that the Petitioner had received his provident fund dues including the amount of WRIC contribution. On or about 31^st March, 1997, UGC informed the WRIC that the Commission has considered the proposal of the pension benefits and gratuity scheme, but by virtue of clause 4 of the Pensioncum-Gratuity scheme, it may not be possible to extend the benefit to ex-employees since the scheme came into effect from 1^st August, 1995 and the Petitioner and Mr. V.M. Vohra retired since July, 1992 and July, 1994 respectively. Vide letter dated 1^st July, 2000, WRIC informed the Petitioner that benefits of the new scheme could not be extended to the Petitioner. The record indicates that prior to this belated communication, the Petitioner's request for pension benefits was being considered at various level. However, the fact remains that the Petitioner was denied the benefit. Thus, pursuant to the communication dated 1^st July, 2000 the Petitioner issued a legal notice dated 6^th February, 2001.

¶30

WRIC / Respondent No.4 has filed the affidavit of Deputy

¶31

5/9

¶32

wp1573-01-JT

¶33

Registrar in-charge of WRIC contending inter alia that WRIC staff are not eligible for the Pension Scheme of University of Mumbai. It is applicable only to those who are paid under the Salary Payment Scheme of the State Government. It is contended that it is only on 15^th July, 1993 i.e. after the retirement of the Petitioner a proposal was made for providing pension benefits to WRIC employees. A letter dated 9^th June, 1995 from WRIC to UGC i.e. Respondent No.1 records that UGC has agreed for Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme for WRIC staff and subsequently, it appears to have been approved by the Government on 23^rd June, 1995 (WRIC Scheme). The WRIC scheme was subsequently, formally introduced on 1^st August, 1995 and implemented in 1^st September, 1995.

¶34

The Petitioner having meanwhile, addressed a legal notice to the UGC and the Registrar of T.I.F.R., where he was formerly employed, T.I.F.R. rejected the Petitioner's claim citing the fact that pensionary benefits are within the discretion of WRIC. It is contended that the Petitioner who is a former Director of WRIC was aware of the fact that the pensionary benefits would not be applicable to him and on his superannuation on 31^st July, 1992 he availed only CPF, gratuity and leave encashment. It is contended that the Petitioner could not claim such pension benefits under the 1995 scheme as of right.

¶35

6/9

¶36

wp1573-01-JT

¶37

In the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. V/s. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1983) 1 Supreme Court Cases 305, the Apex Court made a distinction between liberalization of the existing benefits and introduction of a new scheme. The WRIC scheme introduced by WRIC was a new scheme and it is not as if the Petitioner was denied the existing benefits under a modified / liberalized scheme at the time of his superannuation. Admittedly, the Petitioner has received the payments he was entitled as and by way of the provident fund dues including the amount of WRIC contribution and had availed the same as part of his entitlement. The relationship between the Petitioner and the WRIC came to an end on his superannuation. The WRIC scheme implemented with effect from 1^st September, 1995 was brought into force from 1^st August, 1995 and clause 4 specified that “present employees” of WRIC were to exercise their option for either CPF or Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme. It is also specified in clause 4 of the said scheme that the persons joining the WRIC after the introduction of this scheme can only avail the Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme. A cutoff date was thus recorded by the scheme. The issue of fixation of cutoff date came up for consideration in the case of All India Reserve

¶38

Bank Retired Officers Association & Ors. V/s. Union of India & Anr.

¶39

r eported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 664, wherein it is held that fixation of cut-off date satisfied the test of classification. The

¶40

7/9

¶41

wp1573-01-JT

¶42

distinction has to be drawn between continuance of an existing scheme in its liberalized form and introduction of a wholly new scheme and in the case of a new scheme the retired employees have no vested right and the employer can restrict applicability of the scheme.

¶43

In the case of State of Punjab & Ors. V/s. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. reported in (2005 ) 6 Supreme Court Cases 754 , the Supreme Court once again held that fixation of cut-off date could not be said to be arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶44

The Petitioner's challenge to the non payment of pension as demanded is based on the introduction of “dual system” of pension for present employees and contributory provident fund scheme for the Petitioner, which he claims inter alia penalised the Petitioner for his dedicated service to the nation by accepting the assignment to establish WRIC for improving science education. The Petitioner contends that had he continued his work with TIFR, he would have been entitled for the pension. The Petitioner contends that every employee of the University of Bombay and UGC and every education institute funded by the State Government or Central Government is entitled to pension. That the Petitioner is entitled to pension despite

¶45

8/9

¶46

wp1573-01-JT

¶47

the fact that UGC funds WRIC and although the Petitioner is not an employee of the University of Mumbai. He challenges two different set of rules, one in respect of the employees whose salaries are funded by the State Government and others whose salaries are funded by UGC as being discriminatory. He contends that the classification sought to be made in the WRIC scheme is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires of the Constitution of India.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had already availed the benefits of the provident fund benefits in July, 1992, three years prior to the effect date of the WRIC scheme. The Petitioner cannot therefore claim the benefit of the said scheme. The scheme for WRIC was separately established and implemented and as such, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was deprived of the pensionary benefits by discriminatory action of the Respondents.

¶49

In the circumstances, the petition fails and is dismissed.

¶50

Rule stands discharged.

¶51

(A.K. MENON, J.) ( V.M. KANADE, J.)

¶52

9/9

Dr.a.v.Patankar v. University Grants Commissione and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.a.v.Patankar v. University Grants Commissione and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rachana Sansad'S Academy of Architecture and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Arshiya International Ltd. Vs Sicom Limited

Anil Purushottam Kangutkar and 97 Others Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Gajanan Krishana Gawde and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

H. Rehman Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dawoo Krishna Cawade and 20 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra