Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Prof. Devi Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Indian Institute of Management Lucknow Thru Director & Ors. - Respondents
Service Single No. 18754 of 2019
Decided On : 04-03-2021
CCS Rules, 1972 - Rule 27 and 28 - Societies Registration Act, 1960 - Memorandum of Association - Post of Director – Disqualified - Challenge is order passed by Board of Governors of IIM as contained in Annexure no. 19 to this writ petition whereby payment of pension of petitioner has been stopped holding him disqualified for pension and its arrears - Applications for appointment to post of Director and after search by the competent authorities and with detailed selection procedure petitioner was found suitable for the appointment to the post of Director, IIM and accordingly a High Level Committee recommended his name for such appointment with approval from the cabinet committee of the appointments. Accordingly, the appointment letter was issued appointing petitioner as Director, IIM for period of five years.
Finding of the court: Rule 28 of Rules of 1972 provides for continuation of interruption in service and Rule 28(a) provides that in absence of a specific indication to the contrary in the service book an interruption between two spells of civil service rendered by a government servant under Government shall be treated as automatically condoned and the pre-interruption service be treated as qualifying service - Court vide order having set aside the order whereby the pension of the petitioner was stayed provisionally and the order which was passed by opposite party no. 1 in compliance of order of this Court passing impugned order on the basis of orders dated is an illegal inaction on part of opposite party no. 1 inasmuch as no nest orders i.e. order could not have been taken into account while passing impugned order more so in violation of principles of natural justice.
Result: Writ petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anant Tewari, learned counsel for the Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as IIM, Lucknow) and Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. Under challenge is order dated 25.6.2019 passed by the Board of Governors of IIM, Lucknow as contained in Annexure no. 19 to this writ petition whereby the payment of pension of the petitioner has been stopped holding him disqualified for the pension and its arrears.
3. The brief facts of the case are that IIM, Lucknow invited applications for appointment to the post of Director, IIM, Lucknow and after the search by the competent authorities and with detailed selection procedure the petitioner was found suitable for the appointment to the post of Director, IIM, Lucknow and accordingly a High Level Committee recommended his name for such appointment with approval from the cabinet committee of the appointments. Accordingly, the appointment letter was issued on 28.7.2003 appointing the petitioner as Director, IIM, Lucknow for the period of five years. The petitioner submitted his joining on 25.8.2003.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that IIM, Lucknow is an autonomous body which is a registered society under Societies Registration Act, 1960 and such society has its own Memorandum of Association and Bye Laws.
5. On 03.09.2003, the petitioner submitted an application (Annexure no. 5 to the writ petition) before the Board of Governors to consider his candidature for simultaneous appointment as Professor in the Indian Institute of Management, in line with the practice prevailing in other institutes of management. Vide order dated 22.10.2003 (Annexure no. 6 to the writ petition) Board of Governors of Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow approved simultaneous appointment of the petitioner as Professor IIM, Lucknow.
6. On 24.8.2008, the petitioner completed the tenure of five years as Director, IIM, Lucknow and on 31.8.2008 submitted an application (Annexure no. 7 to the writ petition) to the Board of Governors seeking it's concurrence for his posting as Professor in IIM, Lucknow, Noida Campus, as already approved by the Board of Governors. The petitioner also exercised his option for Government of India pension prevailing in IIM at the time of his joining the institute on 25.8.2003. On 14.10.2003 (Annexure no. 8 to the writ petition), petitioner was conveyed the approval of the Board of Governors acknowledging the fact that after relinquishing the charge of Director, IIM, Lucknow, the petitioner has assumed the charge of the Professor.
7. On 22.9.2008, petitioner resumed the charge as Professor in the pay scale of Rs. 18400-500-22400/- at IIM, Lucknow Noida Campus, Noida. Notably, the order dated 14.10.2008 also stated that prior to resuming the charge, the matter was referred to the Chairman, Board of Governors and approval was accorded by him to the petitioner to resume charge as Professor at IIM, Lucknow, Noida Campus, Noida. The order dated 14.10.2008, also stated that the basic pay of the petitioner as Professor may be fixed as Rs. 22400/-per month with effect from 25.8.2008 and the period from the day he relinquished the charge as Director and until he resumed charge as Professor at IIM, Lucknow, Noida Campus i.e. 25.8.2008 to 21.9.2008 may be treated as grant of earned leave as per the requisition made by the petitioner vide his letter dated 22.9.2008 as at the time of relinquishing the charge as Director, 150 days earned leave was due at his credit. No dues certificate obtained from different departments on relinquishing charge as Director IIM, Lucknow was also enclosed.
8. Sri Shireesh Kumar has, therefore, submitted that in view of the aforesaid developments the petitioner continued in the service of IIM, Lucknow as Professor in continuation to his initial appointment as Director w.e.f. 25.8.200
Post of Director – Pension - Since pension Rules are beneficial legislation, therefore interpretation of such rules should be made liberally, if two interpretations of said rules are possible in view....
petitioner has rendered qualifying pensionery service with effect from the date of his initial joining in the department in question, so the same shall be treated as service qualifying for pension an....
Pension entitlement is protected under law for personnel with over ten years of service, regardless of subsequent resignations, provided statutory rules for retirement were adhered to.
Vested rights cannot be retroactively revoked by legislative amendments unless explicitly stated, ensuring protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The petitioner, having completed 9 years and 8 months of service, is entitled to pension under Rule 40 read with Rule 49(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the court interpreted the rules liber....
The absence of a specific declaration regarding the exclusion of suspension periods mandates their inclusion in calculating qualifying service for pension eligibility under CCS Pension Rules.
Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rules is not applicable to cases where the misconduct in question occurred while the petitioner was in service and departmental proceedings had already been initiated agains....
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
