Employees of autonomous bodies cannot claim pension on par with government employees unless an approved pension scheme exists; pension is a recurring liability and policy decisions are not subject to judicial interference.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of respondents relating to the impugned memorandum of the seventh respondent dated 11.06.2020 bearing Ref.No. No.2092/Ag/ Estt/A3/2020/58/1207, dated 16.11.2020 bearing ref. No.6492/Agri./ Estt./A1/2020/122 and dated 15.07.2022 bearing Ref. No.040/Agri/ Estt/A2/PET/2019/1723 and quash the same and consequently, issue direction to the seventh respondent to transfer the lumpsum pension amount of the petitioner to the fourth respondent and further, issue direction to the fourth respondent to make necessary arrangements to receive the lump sum pension amount in the pension fund of the petitioner and to disburse the retiral benefits viz. monthly pension due to the petitioner and all such sums as may be payable to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 28.02.2022 till date of disbursement.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Agricultural Officer vide memorandum of the sixth respondent dated 10.05.1983 and by an office order dated 10.06.1983, the petitioner was posted as Agricultural Officer at the Sugarcane Agro Research Farm, Kariamanickam and was thereafter posted in the Directorate of Agriculture in the same capacity. The learned counsel further submitted that after formation of the third respondent society in the year 1987, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Professor on deputation basis w.e.f. 30.09.1991 and thereafter the petitioner was provisionally absorbed in the third respondent Institute on 11.09.1996 and subsequently, the petitioner was absorbed on permanent basis as Assistant Professor with effect from 30.09.1991. The petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the respondents claiming pension, however, his request was rejected.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the third respondent is functioning under the control of Government of Puducherry and further submitted that the petitioner was initially posted in the third respondent on deputation basis and thereafter, he was permanently absorbed on permanent basis with the specific clause that the previous service rendered in the parent department will be considered for retirement benefits, however, the petitioner was not given pensionary benefits, which is not sustainable one.

4.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1264 of 2019 [The Secretary to Government (Agriculture) and others Vs. Dr.D.Adiroubane and others] dated 03.03.2023, wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench observed that ‘The employees of autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the Government employees. Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees.’

5.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.The petitioner entered the service of the second respondent and was subsequently, deputed to the third respondent and was thereafter absorbed permanently in the third respondent. There is a policy decision taken to have pension scheme on par with the Government employees, however, the same was not processed by the respondents 1 and 2. Without approval of the respondents 1 and 2, mere decision taken by the third respondent will not give any right to the petitioner to claim pension on par with the Government employees.

7.I