IMPORTANT POINT
The National Pension Scheme governs pension benefits for employees of the Central University, excluding prior service under the 1972 Rules.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner was working in an aided college under the Government of Tamil Nadu, from 1982 onwards. In the year 2015, pursuant to an application made, the petitioner was appointed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics in the Central University of Kerala – the 1st respondent herein. The dispute in this writ petition is essentially as to whether the petitioner’s service in the aided college in the State of Tamil Nadu from 1982 to 2015 ought to have been considered or not, while arriving at his pensionary benefits, upon his retirement in 2023.

2. Though, the petitioner made such a request, by Ext.P3 dated 08.03.2019, the 1st respondent University pointed out that, insofar as it was constituted in the year 2009, under an Act of the Parliament, the employees like the petitioner are governed by the National Pension Scheme (NPS) and not by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner stood rejected as early as in the year 2019, further advising the petitioner to seek pension from the Tamil Nadu Government for the period during which he worked there. Later, Ext.P14 dated 05.08.2019 is issued by the 2nd respondent, relying on certain clauses in Ext.P15 Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, again holding that the request for pension in the manner sought for by the petitioner cannot be extended to him. This is followed with Ext.P13 communication dated 07.11.2022, again advising the petitioner to avail pension from the previous employer for the period when he was working in the State of Tamil Nadu as noticed afore.

3. It is in the afore situation that the petitioner has presented the captioned writ petition, essentially challenging Exts.P13 and P14. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that he is entitled to count his service from 1982 to 2015, while arriving at the pensionary benefits from the 1st respondent University, upon his retirement as above.

4. A detailed counter affidavit dated 11.03.2024 is filed by respondents 1 and 2, pointing out that the petitioner is governed by the NPS as regards the claim for pension and not by the 1972 Rules. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 11.06.2024, placing reliance on Ext.P19, a communication from the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India, whereby similar benefits were extended as regards the employees of the Central University of Himachal Pradesh. He also relies on Ext.P20 judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, closing a writ petition, placing reliance on the instructions obtained by the learned Senior Panel Counsel.

5. I have heard Sri.S.Vishnu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.Ramprasad Unni, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

6. Sri.Vishnu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that;

i. By virtue of the provisions under the 1972 Rules, the petitioner was entitled to take into account his earlier service in the aided college in the State of Tamil Nadu for arriving at pensionary benefits.

ii. He would also rely on Ext.P19 issued by the Ministry of Finance, extending similar benefits as regards the Central University of Himachal Pradesh.

iii. He would also point out that the provisions under Ext.P15 office Memorandum, relied on in Ext.P14, impugned in this writ petition is out of place, since, as per the said Ext.P15 itself, the petitioner was entitled for the benefits.

7. Per contra, Sri.Ramprasad Unni, the learned Standing Counsel for the University, would contend that;

i. The 1972 Rules relied on by the petitioner are not applicable as regards the Central University.

ii. The Central University of Kerala, being a creature of a Central Statute, the employees thereunder are governed by the provisions of the said statute alone.

iii. He would refer to Ext.P1(a) appointment order and the various clauses contained thereunder and point out that the petitioner has specifically accepted the various terms of the said appointment order, o