Allowed

G.Balasubramanian v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC15 Mar 2024WP(C)/16354/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired professor sought a direction to the University of Calicut to remit the corrected pro-rata pension and gratuity contribution to the Dravidian University after recalculation raised the amount from Rs.2,74,960/- to Rs.21,27,767/-. The Court held the Government circular did not apply to universities and that benefits granted to similarly situated persons could not be denied.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P15 quashed; respondents directed to reconsider claim for remittance of pro-rata pension and gratuity per Ext.P13 in light of Exts.P1-P4, with hearing, within three months.

G.Balasubramanian Vs University of Calicut — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 16354 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

G.BALASUBRAMANIAN AGED 63 YEARS S/O. A. GOVINDASAMY, MOZHI ILLAM, 487/136-A1, BHARATHI SALAI, KARIKKADU, PATTUKKOTTAI, THANJAVUR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU., PIN - 614602

¶8

BY ADVS. P.K.IBRAHIM K.P.AMBIKA FATHIMA FIDHA

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TIRUR-CALICUT ROAD, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR., PIN - 673635

¶11

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

¶12

BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON 15.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

-2-

¶15

WP(C)No. 16354 of 2022

¶16

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶18

WP(C)No. 16354 of 2022

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2024

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner served the University of Calicut as Lecturer and Reader for 16 years and 3 months before being relieved vide order dated 27.2.2006 to take up employment as Associate professor in the Dravidian University with a lien for five years as per Ext P5. Later on, being confirmed as a Professor, the petitioner requested the first respondent University to cancel his lien and transfer his service details, PF and Pension contributions to the Dravidian University as per Ext.P6. The Calicut University by letters dated 23.2.2012 and 11.5.2012, requested the Registrar of Dravidian University to intimate them the actual amount of pension contribution to be remitted for reckoning the past service of the petitioner. In reply to the same, the Registrar of the Dravidian University informed the first respondent to remit an amount of Rs.2,74,960/- with simple interest @ 8.50% per annum towards the pension contribution of the petitioner and the other benefits vide Ext.P10. The Syndicate of the University resolved to remit an amount of Rs.2,74,960/- in the account of

¶23

-3-

¶24

WP(C)No. 16354 of 2022

¶25

Dravidian University, Andhra Pradesh, being the pension contribution of the petitioner, taking note of previous instances of transferring the pro-rata pension as seen from Ext P11.

¶26

The petitioner had retired from service on 30.04.2021. While processing the pensionary benefits, Dravidian University found that there was a mistake in the calculation of pension and gratuity payable by the former employer, the Calicut University, and after a recalculation, it was found that the actual amount to be remitted by the Calicut University was Rs.21,27,767/- instead of Rs.2,74,960/- as initially claimed and remitted. The Registrar of the Dravidian University had also furnished the calculation details and requested to remit Rs.21,27,767/- being the pension contribution on a pro-rata basis payable by the first respondent vide Ext.P13. The first respondent intimated the petitioner relying on Circular No.74/1999/Fin. dated 4.12.1999, which clarified that there was no legal obligation on the part of the former employer to pay pro-rata pension if the applicant had entered into the latter service through a notification and accordingly declined the request sought for by the petitioner, which is challenged in this writ petition.

¶27

The Government has filed a counter relying on Ext.P21 order as well as Ext.R2(c) an order dated 21.3.2022, which was an answer given by the Government to the Registrar of the Calicut University stating that the

¶28

-4-

¶29

WP(C)No. 16354 of 2022

¶30

Government had dispensed the payment of pro rata pensionary liabilities between the Government of Kerala and Panchayath and Municipal Common Service and University and therefore, the request to remit the amount of Rs.21,27,767/- was declined.

¶31

The University has also filed a counter relying on the above documents and resisted the claim of the petitioner.

¶32

Heard Sri. P.K. Ibrahim, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel for the University and Sri.Sarojini K.G., the learned senior Government Pleader.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.K. Ibrahim submits, based on Ext.P1 judgment of this Court, that in an identical situation, directed the pro-rata pension to be paid. The judgment of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, also relying on Ext.P1 judgment, is produced, and it is shown that the Government had, in all the previous cases, granted prior requests for payment of the pro-rata pension. The University, while allowing the first claim of the petitioner for Rs.21,27,767/-, had considered four earlier cases and allowed the claim. The other Universities had also granted similar claims. It is thus the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claims were initially allowed, but there was a mistake on the part of the calculation of the Dravidian University, and when the corrected amount was demanded, it was resisted by the Calicut University

¶34

-5-

¶35

WP(C)No. 16354 of 2022

¶36

based on the Government Order referred to above.

¶37

On a reading of Ext.P21 based on which the claim is rejected, it shows that it does not apply per se to the Universities. That apart, in a similar situation, the claim for pro-rata pension by Lecturers who had taken up employment as that of the petitioner was accepted. Under such circumstances, neither the University nor the State can take a stand now to discriminate against the petitioner when all other similar persons have been granted the benefits. Under such circumstances, it is to be noted that the claim made by the petitioner in the first instance was upheld by the same University and in view of Ext.P1 to P4 orders with respect to similarly situated persons, the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected. It is also seen that there was no appeal filed against the judgment in Ext.P1, and the said judgment has become final, where this Court found that if a benefit is given to one person who forms a class, it cannot be denied to others included in the homogenous class. In view of the above judgment, the prayers in the writ petition have to be allowed.

¶38

Though the learned standing counsel for the University points out that the petitioner has not challenged Ext.P21 order and Exts.R2(c) order based on which the impugned order is passed, taking note of the declaration of law in Ext.P1 judgment and the orders granting benefits to similarly situated persons, I am not inclined to accept the contention and

¶39

-6-

¶40

¶41

refuse the reliefs based on the said contention.

¶42

Under such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, and Ext.P15 is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of Exts.P1 judgment and P2 to P4 orders and to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner for remittance of pro-rata pension and gratuity of the petitioner for the period the petitioner worked in the first respondent University as requested in Ext.P13, with notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Orders in this regard shall be passed, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of a judgment.

¶43

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE

dlk/13.3.2024

-7-

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16354/2022

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶52

EXHIBIT-P1	TRUE WPC N	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT O.25320/2016	DATED 15.02.2019 IN
EXHIBIT-P2	TRUE (RT.) 2ND R	COPY OF TH NO.1071/2013/H.EDN DAT ESPONDENT	E ORDER G.O. ED 06.06.2013 OF THE
EXHIBIT-P3	TRUE DATED	COPY OF THE ORDER U 08.05.2017 OF THE 1ST	.O.NO.5795/2017/ADMN RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P4	TRUE 17.12	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G .2007 OF THE 1ST RESPO	AII/C2/2076/99 DATED NDENT
EXHIBIT-P5	TRUE DATED	COPY OF THE ORDER 27.02.2006 OF THE 1ST	NO.GAII/F2/961/2000 RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P6	TRUE DATED CALIC	COPY OF THE REQUEST 21.07.2009 ADDRESSED UT UNIVERSITY	OF THE PETITIONER TO THE REGISTRAR,
EXHIBIT-P7	TRUE DATED	COPY OF THE ORDER 20.10.2009 OF THE 1ST	NO.GAII/F2/961/2000 RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P8	TRUE DATED DRAVI	COPY OF THE LETTER NO 03.08.2009 OF THE DIAN UNIVERSITY TO THE	.DU/ESTT/E-2/GB/2009 REGISTRAR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P9	TRUE DATED	COPY OF THE LETTER N 11.05.2012 OF THE 1ST	O.GA II/F2/961/2000 RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P10	TRUE DATED THE D IT	COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 04.12.2012 OF DRAVI ETAILS OF CALCULATION	DU.ESTT/E2/T-44/2012 DIAN UNIVERSITY AND FURNISHED ALONG WITH
EXHIBIT-P11	TRUE	COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.	NO.4/2015/ADMN DATED

¶53

-8-

¶54

¶55

	01.01.2015 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P12	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.DU/ESTT/E2/T- 44/2015 DATED 18.06.2015 OF DRAVIDIAN UNIVERSITY
EXHIBIT-P13	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DU.ESTT/E2/T- 44/P&G/2021 DATED 05.10.2021 OF THE REGISTRAR OF THE DRAVIDIAN UNIVERSITY ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P14	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF PETITIONER DATED 06.10.2021 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P15	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.10870/GA-II-F- SO/2013/CU DATED 07.04.2022
EXHIBIT-P16	TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE SYNDICATE DATED 10.11.2014
EXHIBIT-P17	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 04.04.2006 RELIED AS PRECEDENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY
TYPED COPY OF EXHIBIT	TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE EXHIBIT-P17
EXHIBIT-P18	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.517/09/FIN DATED 19.11.2009
EXHIBIT-P19	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.6.2022 IN OA(EKM) NO. 252/2020 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM)
EXHIBIT-P20	TUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.1597/2022/HEDN DATED 27.10.2022 COMPLYING WITH THE DIRECTION IN EXT.P19
EXHIBIT-P21	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.74/99/FIN. DATED 04.12.1999 OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

¶56

-9-

¶57

¶58

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶59

EXHIBIT R1(A)	TRUE JOINT	COPY DIRE	OF THE CTOR OF	LETTER DATED 3/6/2013 OF THE LOCAL FUND AUDIT
EXHIBIT R1(B)	TRUE DIREC	COPY TOR O	OF THE F LOCAL	LETTER 22/4/2014 OF THE JOINT FUND AUDIT
EXHIBIT R1(C)	TRUE DATED SECRE 21/3/	COPY 21/ TARY, 2022	OF TH 3/2022 TO	E LETTER NO.B1/32/2022/H EDN FROM THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF GOVERNMENT (H.EDN) DATED
EXHIBIT R2(A)	TRUE SO/20	COPY 13/CU	OF DATED	THE LETTER NO.10870/GA-II-F- 03-06-2013
EXHIBIT R2(B)	TRUE DATED	COPY 01-0	OF THE 8-2013	LETTER NO.L.F/C.U.A.2/587/2013
EXHIBIT R2(C)	TRUE DATED	COPY 21/0	OF T 3/2022	HE LETTER NO.B1/32/2022/HEDN

G.Balasubramanian v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Balasubramanian v. University of Calicut

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

Sheeba T.J Vs State of Kerala

Nagesh Kumar.B.R., Vs Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University

A.Shakeela, Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Pavneez Abdul Rahman Vs the State of Kerala

Jeela. N Vs State of Kerala

Videep, Vs State of Kerala