Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, HARISH KUMAR, JJ.
Ram Nandan Prasad Sinha S/o Late Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 585 of 2021, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4772 of 2019
Decided On : 18-04-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ramakant Sharma, Rajesh Kumar.
For the Respondents: Nadeem Seraj, Shashi Shekhar Tiwary.
IMPORTANT POINT
Withdrawal of contributions under the C.P.F. Scheme disentitles an individual from pensionary benefits, and the absence of statutory provisions for leave encashment impacts entitlement to such benefits.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Pension Dispute - Patna University Statutes, Bihar Pension Rules, Bihar Service Code - The court discussed the applicability of the Patna University Statutes, Bihar Pension Rules, and Bihar Service Code in the context of a pension dispute. It highlighted the forfeiture of service and disentitlement from pensionary benefits due to withdrawal of contributions under the C.P.F. Scheme and absence unauthorizedly. The court also emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for leave encashment and the impact of executive instructions on the same.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a former lecturer at Patna University, sought pension under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme for his 24 years of service. The University rejected his claim due to the forfeiture of service and withdrawal of contributions under the C.P.F. Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had disentitled himself from pensionary benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment, due to the forfeiture of service and withdrawal of contributions under the C.P.F. Scheme. It upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appellant's claim.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's entitlement to pension and other post-retiral dues from Patna University, considering the cancellation of his lien, withdrawal of contributions under the C.P.F. Scheme, and the applicability of statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's withdrawal of contributions under the C.P.F. Scheme disentitled him from pensionary benefits. It also emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for leave encashment and the impact of executive instructions on the same.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Re: I.A. No. 1 of 2021
1. The aforesaid interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 333 days in preferring the present appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in preferring this appeal is, hereby, condoned.
3. The I.A. No. 1 of 2021 stands allowed.
Re: L.P.A. No. 585 of 2021:
1. We have heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar for the appellant and Mr. Nadeem Seraj for the Patna University. The State is represented by Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary.
2. The appellant has questioned the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15th of October, 2020 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4772 of 2019, whereby his prayer for a direction to the Patna University (in short the University) to pay pension to him under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme for his having put in 24 years of service in the University, has been rejected.
3. Shorn of details, the facts of this case are stark, which disentitles the appellant from getting anything from the University as his post-retiral dues.
4. The appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Geography of Patna University, sometimes in July, 1956. He was promoted to the post of Reader on 01.03.1974 and continued on such post till 1980.
5. The appellant had asked for an extraordinary leave, which was granted to him from 11.08.1980 to join the Department of Geography in Maharaja Sayajirao University, Barodra on lien, which was for two years. The appellant appears to have been appointed on the post of Professor at Maharaja Sayajirao University, Barodra permanently from where he retired in July, 1992. Since the lien granted to him was only for two years, within which time the appellant did not come back nor was he heard of by the University, the lien was cancelled with effect from 16.08.1982.
6. The appellant claims that without notice to him, the lien could not have been cancelled and that he is entitled for being paid his Pension for 24 years of service that he had rendered as Lecturer and Reader in the Department of Geography in Patna University. Since the lien was wrongly cancelled, the appellant shall be presumed to be in continuous service of the University, entitling him to be paid pension under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme.
7. It appears from the records that the appellant had opted for C.P.F. Scheme and while he was still working at Baroda, he withdrew his contribution, thereby totally disentitling him from questioning the decision of the University in not paying him Pension for 24 years of service that he had rendered in the University under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme.
8. Mr. Nadeem Siraj, the counsel for the University has pointed out that Section 24(b) of the Patna University Statutes provides that the provisions of Bihar Pension Rules shall be applicable when there is no specific provision in the Rules of the University. Rule 103 of the Bihar Pension Rules further clarifies that if a person remains absent unauthorizedly, the past service of such person shall be forfeited and such person shall not be entitled for any benefit under the Pension Rules.
9. The appellant had practically abandoned his service at Patna University and in token of his having accepted the fact, he also withdrew his contributions under the C.P.F. Scheme. This leaves him in an unenviable position of being disentitled from any further relief from the University.
10. Be that as it may, it would be necessary to record two other facts. When the lien of the appellant was terminated on account of his having not reported back to the University, he preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed off with a direction/request to the Hon’ble Chancellor to look into his grievance and pass orders accordingly. The Hon’ble Chancellor, in turn, referred the matter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to take an informed de
