Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
Dr. V. Vilfred, S/o. T. Kamalappan – Appellant
Versus
The Central University Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No. 23746 of 2023
Decided on : 15-10-2024
(A) Central Universities Act, 2009 - National Pension Scheme - CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Petition challenging refusal to consider prior service for pension benefits - The court held that the petitioner, governed by NPS, cannot claim benefits under 1972 Rules as it does not apply to employees of the Central University. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
(B) The petitioner is permitted to apply for similar benefits based on provisions extended to another university, which the university must consider. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner worked in an aided college in Tamil Nadu from 1982 to 2015 and was later appointed as an Associate Professor in a Central University. His request to consider prior service for pension was denied based on applicable rules.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the petitioner's earlier service cannot be counted under the 1972 Rules, which do not apply to Central University employees.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's service in Tamil Nadu should be considered for pension benefits under the applicable rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the 1972 Rules do not apply to the petitioner as he is governed by NPS due to his appointment under a Central Statute.
Result: Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to apply for similar benefits.
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;
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;
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, on
The petitioner, governed by the National Pension Scheme, cannot claim pension benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as they do not apply to employees of the Central University.
The National Pension Scheme governs pension benefits for employees of the Central University, excluding prior service under the 1972 Rules.
Entitlement to pension considering prior service under differing pension schemes is examined.
Government Orders cannot apply retrospectively to deny pensionary benefits based on service commenced prior to their enactment.
The court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as the decision to extend benefits to similarly situated employees constituted a fresh cau....
Eligibility for pension benefits requires continuous service without voluntary breaks; prior service in different institutions does not automatically qualify unless condoned.
Entitlement to retirement benefits must include previously appointed employees despite the introduction of a new pension scheme.
Past temporary services of employees must be considered for pension calculation under the Bihar Pension Rules, ensuring fair treatment and preventing undue hardship.
The court ruled that the entire service of the petitioner from 1979 to 2015 must be considered for pension calculation, subject to the deposit of management contributions, as earlier cut-off dates we....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
