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 cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Independent of any matter sub-judice in any Court of law, respondent No.1 took a decision to extend old GPF-cum-Pension & Gratuity Scheme and pensionary benefits as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to the 10 employees of respondent No.2-University. These 10 employees were in government service prior to their joining respondent No.2-University and were governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972/Old GPF-cum-Pension & Gratuity Scheme in their parent departments. They had joined respondent No.2-University after tendering technical resignations from their respective departments. Petitioner is one of these 10 employees. Respondent No.2-University, however, has declined to extend the benefit of respondent No.1’s afore-decision to the petitioner, hence, the dispute.

2. From the pleadings and submissions of the parties, following facts emerge:-

2(i). Petitioner was working as Professor in the Department of Sociology in the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, when respondent No.2-Central University of Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala advertised several posts of Professors on its establishment including a post of Professor in Social Work. While serving the University of Rajasthan, the petitioner was being governed by General Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity and Old Pension Scheme as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

2(ii). After introduction of the New Pension Scheme, clarifications were issued by the Government of India to the effect that persons, who were earlier working in the establishments governed by the Old Pension Scheme, on their appointment to the establishments governed by the New Pension Scheme, would still be entitled to the Old Pension Scheme and on account of portability of pension, they would be entitled to pensionary benefits in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

2(iii). Petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Professor (Social Work) in respondent No.2- University pursuant to the advertisement issued by it. He was declared successful and was offered appointment to the post of Professor in Social Work on 13.03.2012.

2(iv). Petitioner tendered his technical resignation to the University of Rajasthan on account of his selection as Professor in Social Work in respondent No.2-University. University of Rajasthan accepted petitioner’s technical resignation on 03.04.2012. Petitioner joined respondent No.2-University on 04.04.2012.

2(v). There were provisions in respondent No.2- University’s ordinances, enabling those, who had joined after rendering technical resignations, portability of pension and for their continuance under the Old Pension Scheme, more particularly for those, who had previously been working in pensionable establishments prior to joining respondent No.2-University. Petitioner statedly was entitled for portability of pension and continuation under the Old Pension Scheme, however, this benefit was not extended by respondent No.2 to him and some other similarly situated persons, in all 10 in number.

2(vi). Petitioner and other similarly situated persons, 10 in number, filed a Civil Writ Petition, being CWP No.9311 of 2013, for issuing directions to respondent No.2 to grant portability of pension to them by counting their past service rendered in previous institutions, where they were governed under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The writ petition was dismissed on 07.01.2016.

2(vii). Petitioner alongwith other nine persons, assailed the above-referred judgment by instituting LPA No.13 of 2016. Petitioner was nearing his superannuation. He was set to retire on 30.04.2019. On account of pendency of the litigation, the respondents were not settling his retiral dues, which were even otherwise admissible to him. Faced with this, petitioner moved CMP No.2099 of 2019 in LPA No.13 of 2016, seeking to withdraw from the appeal. His application was allowed as not opposed on 20.03.2019. Petitioner’s name was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.

2(v