The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee is entitled to pensionary benefits based on past services rendered in other institutions, even if currently in service at a different institution and not near retirement.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4654/2002 dated 14.07.2004 by which the respondent-Dr. (Mrs.) Uma Sharma, who is presently a Lecturer in Khandelwal Vaishya Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Jaipur, has been held entitled to receive the benefits of past services rendered by her on adhoc basis in several other Colleges where she taught including Kota Open University. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that the said period shall be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of retiral benefits and the petitioner/respondent herein shall also be entitled to receive the share of the provident fund amount which the appellant-University has contributed during the period when the respondent had rendered her services. The respondent has also been held entitled for arrears of benefits of Career Advancement Scheme and encashment of due privilege. The arrears towards the share of contributory provident fund which the respondent had deposited at Kota Open University, has already been paid to her.

2. The grievance which has been raised by the appellant-Kota Open University in this appeal is only to the extent that the respondent should not be held entitled for the pensionary benefits from Kota Open University as the said post is not pensionable and if even it were so, she having joined another College i.e., Khandelwal Vaishya Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Jaipur, she cannot be held entitled for pensionary benefits from Kota Open University.

3. This fear of the appellant is wholly unfounded as it is crystal clear from the operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge that the respondent has been held entitled to receive the benefits of the services which she has rendered on adhoc basis in other Colleges including Kota Open University plus pensionary benefits and other incidental benefits in terms of the Career Advancement Scheme.

4. But it is an admitted position that the respondent is still in service at Khandewal Vaishya Mahila Mahavidyalaya and is no where near her retirement and, therefore, the question of payment of retiral benefits to the respondent at this stage by the appellant Kota Open University does not arise at all, specially when the respondent has quit the services in the Kota Open University and has joined at Jaipur. What has been granted by the learned Single Judge to the respondent is only the benefit of qualifying service which she has rendered in other Colleges on adhoc basis plus the benefits of Career Advancement Scheme which scheme had been introduced by the University Grants Commission as a result of which, whenever the respondent retires from active service, she would avail the benefit of her past services which shall be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of determination of pension. Thus, this appeal has been filed by the University on the unfounded fear and mis-interpretation of the order of the learned Single Judge on the plea that the learned Single Judge could not have granted pensionary benefit to the respondent from Kota Open University. The learned Single Judge has no where observed that the respondent shall be entitled for pensionary benefits from Kota Open University. What has been granted is only the benefit of the past service which she has rendered as qualifying service for all purposes under the Career Advancement Scheme including pensionary benefit whenever she retires and, therefore, this appeal in our view has been filed merely on erroneous assumption and mis-interpretation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reading more than what has been granted by the impugned order.

5. For the benefit of the appellant-University, therefore, we have clarified the order passed by the learned Single Judge and we reiterate that this appeal has been a futile exercise on their part specially when the Counsel for the appellant-University has also accepted the position that the responden