SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 29

1997(1) Supreme 270
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Anr. etc. -Appellants
versus
Amrit Lal Gandhi & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 9710-17 of 1995
With
C.A. No. 9718/95, C.A. No. 77 of 1997)
@ SLP (C) No. 19231/1996
Decided on 10-1-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Tapas Ray, Anil B. Divan, Sr. Advs., Aruneshwar Gupta, Sushil Kumar Jain, K.S. Bhati, B.N. Singhvi, Surya Kant, (Indra Makwana) Adv. (NP), B.D. Sharma, Rajesh, Raj Kr. Gupta, H.P. Sharma, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Financial impact of giving retrospective operation to the Pension Regulations can be the sole consideration while fixing a cut-off date.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Education-Teaching staff of University of Jodhpur-Introduction of pensionary scheme in University-State Government decided to introduce pension scheme w.e.f. 1-1-1990-Validity of cut off date challenged-Whether this cut off date was fixed arbitrarily? -(No)-High Court was in error in substituting date of 1-1-1986 for 1-1-1990-Financial impact of making Regulations retrospective can be sole consideration while fixing a cut-off date-Policy decision of universities making Pension Regulations applicable w.e.f. 1-1-1990 has not been shown to be arbitrary or invalid. (Para 10)

       

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-Leave granted.

2. The common question of law which arises in these appeals by special leave relates to the date with effect from which the revised pension is to be paid to the teachers of the Jai Narayan Vyas University and Mohan Lal Sukhadia University who had retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990.

3. Though the facts in these appeals are similar, for the purpose of this judgment, we need only refer to the facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 9710-9717 of 1995 and S.L.P. (C) No. 19231 of 1996 which arise from the judgment dated 30.8.1994 of the Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. civil Writ Petition No. 115/1993 which considered the rival contentions of the parties on merit. The said judgment has been followed by the High Court while allowing the writ petition from which Civil Appeal No. 9718 of 1995 arises.

In 1962, Jodhpur University Act, 1962 was promulgated. For the teaching staff of the University contributory provident fund rules were framed and there was no pension scheme which was applicable to them.

It appears that the University Grant Commission in 1983 constituted a committee known as Mehrotra Committee to examine the structure of emoluments and also the conditions of service of the University and College teachers.

The Mehrotra Committee submitted its report in 1986, containing various recommendations. One of the recommendations related to extending pension-cum-gratuity scheme to the teachers of Universities and colleges.

4. Pursuant to the said recommendations, resolutions were passed in 1986 by the Syndicate of University of Jodhpur (now known as Jai Narayan Vyas University) and approved by the University Senate for the introduction of pensionary scheme in the University. According to this scheme, option was to be given to the university employees to opt either for contributory provident fund or for pension in lieu of the provident fund. Draft rules providing for payment of pension were also approved.

5. As the proposed scheme had financial implications, the University had to seek the approval of the Government. The Education Department of the Rajasthan Government, vide its letter dated 16.4.1991, informed the Vice-chancellors of the Rajasthan University. Jaipur, Jodhpur University, Jodhpur, M.L. Sukhdia University, Udaipur, Ajmer University, Ajmer and Kota Open University, Kota that the State Government had decided to introduce the pension scheme in the Universities of the State w.e.f. 1.1.1990. It is pursuant thereto that the cabinet of the Jodhpur University on 24.4.1991 approved the resolutions of the Syndicate and the Senate providing for the introduction of the pension scheme. Thereafter Pension Regulations 1990 and General Provident Fund Regulations 1990 were framed and on 3.8.1991 options were invited from all persons who were in the service of the University of Jodhpur on or after 1.1.1990 to give their options whether they wanted to be covered by the Provident Fund Regulations or desired to be covered by the Pension Regulations of 1990.

Thereafter, several writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Rajasthan. Two writ petitions were filed by the erstwhile teachers of the Rajasthan University who had retired prior to 1.1.1986 while eight writ petitions were filed by those who had retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990.

6. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed all the aforesaid writ petitions and directed that the revised pension scheme should be made applicable to all the petitioners including those who had retired prior to 1.1.1986. Appeals were then filed before the Division Bench which, vide judgment dated 30.8.1994, held that the revised pension scheme should be made applicable to only those employees who had retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990.

7. As already noticed above, the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench was followed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3489 of 1993 filed by the retired university teachers of the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur from which Civil Appeal No
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top