Partly allowed

Op Yadav v. Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Feb 2012CWP/10227/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought 5 years weightage for superannuation pension under Rule 3.2 of Pension Statute. Court held that since initial post (Lecturer) did not require Ph.D., only 2 years weightage is admissible. Answered in favour of petitioner for 2 years weightage and direction to pay arrears.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted weightage of 2 years for superannuation pension calculation; arrears to be paid within 12 weeks with 6% interest from date pension fell due.

Op Yadav Vs Chaudhary Charan Singh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

[1]

¶2

CWP No.10227 of 2005(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.10227 of 2005(O&M) Date of Decision:23.02.2012

¶5

Dr. O.P. Yadav, Professor (Retired) s/o Sh. Sarjit Singh, Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, r/o House No.258, Sector PLA (Old) Hisar.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar through its Vice Chancellor and others.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate and Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

¶15

2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO

¶16

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO

¶17

K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

¶18

The petitioner seeks for weightage of 5 years to be given for his superannuation pension in terms of Chapter XII of the Statute governing the service conditions of persons employed in the University. Rule 3.2 of the Pension Statute provided for a superannuation pension giving a weightage of certain number of years for calculating the qualifying number of years of service. To address the issue for adjudication, it is relevant to reproduce the Rule, which reads as follow:

¶19

“(ii) Service Qualifying for Pension:

¶20

[2]

¶21

CWP No.10227 of 2005(O&M)

¶22

provisions of the Punjab CSR Vol.II applicable to Haryana Govt. employees as amended from time to time.

¶23

3.2 An employee appointed to a service or post shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the actual periods by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeds 25 years or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the service or post to which he is appointed is one.

¶24

(a) for which post-graduate research or a specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or profession field is essential and

¶25

(b) to which candidates or more than 25 years of age are normally recruited.”

¶26

The clause provides for certain provisos also but they are not necessary for the purpose of this case.

¶27

The petitioner's contention is that he had a Ph.D. qualification at the time when he was appointed as a Lecturer at the age of 32 on 05.07.1975. However, as per the University recommendations, the cadre of Lecturers/Research Assistant, which was lower to the post of Assistant Professor was scrapped and the scales also merged with the scales provided to Assistant Professors through a decision to this effect taken by the Haryana Agricultural University on 11.03.1976. On a representation given by the petitioner to inform as to the relevant date from when he must be treated as having been appointed as Assistant Professor, he had been informed that it should be taken that he was appointed as Assistant Professor

¶28

[3]

¶29

CWP No.10227 of 2005(O&M)

¶30

from 05.07.1975. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would, therefore, argue that since he already possessed a Ph.D. qualification, he must be given the weightage of 5 years in terms of Rule 3.2 of the Pension Statute.

¶31

The University has rejected his claim on the basis that in the manner of understanding the Statute, it was sought to be clarified by an instruction given by the Registrar to all Deans, Directors and Heads of Departments of the University on 23.02.2002. The communication sought to explain the rationale for providing the weightage and stated that the weightage under Rule 3.2 would be admissible only if the initial appointment of a person was as an Assistant Professor and equivalent when the qualification for the post was Ph.D. This was taken as a justification for rejecting the claim of the petitioner by pointing out that although he was treated as appointed as Assistant Professor later through the abolition of the post as Lecturer, at the time when he had been appointed he was appointed to the post of Lecturer, which did not require a postgraduate research or a specialist qualification. The fact that he had a postgraduate research qualification itself was immaterial since it must conform to every requirement of what the Statute provides for. The communication explains that a person, who passed a Postgraduate Programme and also have 3 years of experience cannot be at any stage before a person completed 27 years and, therefore, the weightage for that person could at best be only 2 years beyond 25 years. The counsel appearing for the respondents would explain that if at all, the weightage that could be applied to the petitioner would be only 2 years.

¶32

The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner responds to this argument by pointing out that in yet another case of one Dr. Phool Singh, who had joined the service of the

¶33

[4]

¶34

CWP No.10227 of 2005(O&M)

¶35

University on 26.03.1975 as an Assistant Professor and retired from service after 23 years 9 months and 5 days, he had been given the weightage of 5 years and his case must also be considered on the same lines.

¶36

If we must understand the Statute from what it specifically states, it admits of no exception that the weightage was to be applied in a case where the postgraduate qualification was essential to the post, which the person held. The weightage is to the person, who held a particular post, but if he held a post as a Lecturer initially and the qualification to that post was not a postgraduate research or a specialist qualification then question of applying Rule 3.2 would not arise. This is how the Registrar's letter itself reads and I do not find that the explanation given conflicts with the Statute, as the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to contend. It brings a justification for what the Statute contains. The explanation fits with logic and this cannot again be read without applying Rule 3.2(b) where the weightage issue must be seen in the context of a person, who must have been more than 25 years of age that is normally recruited. The maximum weightage of 5 years as Rule 3.2 indicates cannot avail to a person, who was appointed to a post which did not require a Ph.D. qualification. I cannot also apply to the petitioner of what availed to Dr. Phool Singh, since the latter had been appointed to the post as an Assistant Professor initially in March, 1975, which post surely required a Ph.D. qualification. The best that the petitioner can obtain is, therefore, a weightage of 2 years in the manner that the letter of the Registrar explains, which I would hold as not in conflict with the Statute. The petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to reckoning for a further period of 2 years for the purpose of superannuation pension and fresh calculation shall be made and the arrears shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks from

¶37

[5]

¶38

CWP No.10227 of 2005(O&M)

¶39

the date of receipt of copy of the order with interest @ 6% per annum from the time when the pension fell due.

¶40

The writ petition is ordered on the above terms.

¶41

23^rd February, 2012 Rajan

¶42

( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE

Op Yadav v. Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Op Yadav v. Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maman Singh etc. Vs Parmeshwari Devi

Rahul Raghuvanshi Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Gurjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Miss Pooja Ahluwalia Vs State of Punjab

Ram Parkash Verma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mahavir Singh Dhanda & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. (Decided Case)