Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.
Ram Babu Mehta – Appellant
Versus
The Patna University & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7123, 8544 of 2013
Decided on : 15.1.2015
For the Petitioners:Mr. Shrawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr Dinesh Maharaj
For the Patna University : Mr. Digvijay Singh Mr B.J.Jha
For Union of India : Mr Md. Anis Akhtar
The judgment established the principle that the employment relationship and entitlement to post-retirement benefits are determined by the governing statutory provisions and the actual administrative control exercised by the employer.
Headnote:
Pension Dispute - Employment Relationship - Patna University Act - [Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, retired employees of the Population Research Centre, Department of Statistics at Patna University, sought post-retirement benefits from the University. The University contested, claiming the employees were not under its employment but were governed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the employment relationship and the administrative control exercised by the University over the Centre. It concluded that the employees were not under the direct employment of the University and were governed by the scheme of the Central Government, thus dismissing the writ applications.
Issues: The main issue was whether the retired employees of the Population Research Centre were entitled to post-retirement benefits from Patna University.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the employees were not under the direct employment of Patna University and were governed by the scheme of the Central Government, thus not entitled to post-retirement benefits from the University.
Final Decision: The writ applications were dismissed, and the petitioners were not granted post-retirement benefits from Patna University.
The two writ applications have common prayer as well as common facts as such, therefore, were heard together and are being decided together. Ram Babu Mehta retired as Analyst and Ali Imam as a Senior Upper Division Assistant from Population Research Centre, Department of Statistics at Patna University. The respective date of retirement is 30.11.2012 and 31.8.2012.
2. The facts behind the present litigation is that on an advertisement published in a local newspaper way back on 25.1.1979 (Annexure- 1), the petitioners applied. Mr Mehta was an applicant for the post of Computer Analyst. He was selected and appointment letter was issued. He joined the post on 2.5.1979 but went on leave on ground of illness. Besides, he also had to be relieved by the previous employer, namely, United Bank of India. He finally joined on 31.8.1979. It is his case that he was even promoted to the post of Research Officer in the scale of Rs. 2200- 4000, which would be evident from Annexure- 6 to the writ application. However, in the year 2003, he was sent back as Analyst which post he held till his retirement. Post retirement, he made an application before the Registrar, Patna University for fixation of his pension, which is Annexure- 7 but since nothing came out of it, he decided to move the High Court.
3. So far as Mr Ali Imam is concerned, he was working as a daily wage Typist under the respondent no.4, which is the Population Research Centre. He came to be regularized on the post of Typist with a pay scale in terms of Annexure-8. In the year 1985, he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk then as a Senior Assistant in September 2000. He too after superannuation applied for post retiral dues. Since nothing was heard from the respondent authorities of the Patna University, he decided to approach the High Court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners submits that right from the day of their selection and appointment it is the Patna University, which has been exercising control over their service. There is a master servant relationship between Patna University and them. Various communications would show that it is the Patna University, which has been taking various decisions in relation to them but for strange reason now the respondents are refusing to grant benefit of pension and retiral dues after their superannuation on one plea or the other. He also harps on the fact that various communications contained as Annexures, would show that the letters have been issued by the Patna University under the signature of the various functionaries of the University so case for mandamus is made out.
5. The respondent Patna University was directed to file their counter affidavit and explain the reason of non-payment of socalled rightful due of the petitioners after superannuation.
6. The University has taken a stand that the Population Research Centre, which was formerly known as Demographic Research Centre, was creation of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Statistics Division, Government of India in terms of the letter dated 20.7.1965. The said communication is Annexure- A to the counter affidavit. The necessary grant for payment of salary and other allowances of the employees working under the Centre was being released by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India every financial year. The directives issued by them from time to time was being followed by the respondent University and the Centre is basically a baby of the Ministry of Health, Government of India. The said Centre was only attached with Patna University for the purposes of administrative control of the University but at no point of time any master servant relationship was established between Patna University and the two petitioners. The employees working under PRC worked under the project independently and the University was not empowered to take any decision on them over and above the directives issued by the Ministry.
7. Right from the beg
