AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The petitioners, who are widows of the retired employees of the Panjab University, Chandigarh, have filed the instant writ petition challenging the order Annexure P-13, whereby their representation to grant them an opportunity to exercise option to adopt the Pension Scheme formulated by the Panjab University called as Panjab University Employees (Pensions) Regulations, 1991, has been rejected by the Vice Chancellor on the ground that the legal heirs of the deceased employees cannot be allowed to exercise option to adopt the Pension Scheme, in view of Pension Regulation 5.2 and 1.8. The petitioners are also challenging the validity of Regulation 5.2 of Panjab University Employees (Pensions) Regulations, 1991 to the extent of denying the family pension to the petitioners on the ground that their husbands were not the recipients of pension at the time of their death. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length.
Undisputedly, the husband of petitioner No. 1 retired on 30.6.2005 and expired on 3.2.2006; the husband of petitioner No. 2 after retirement expired on 7.7.2001; the husband of petitioner No. 3 after retirement expired on 31.8.1989; the husband of petitioner No. 4 retired on 28.2.1994 and expired on 14.5.2003; the husband of petitioner No. 5 expired on 11.6.1976 while he was in service; the husband of petitioner No. 6 retired on 31.10.1993 and expired on 30.1.2002; the husband of petitioner No. 7 retired on 30.5.1988 and expired on 12.12.2002; the husband of petitioner No. 8 expired on 3.12.1982 while he was in service; while the husband of petitioner No. 9 retired on 29.2.1992 and expired on 13.8.1994.
The respondent-University in order to fulfill the long standing demand of pension by the teachers and non-teaching employees of the Panjab University, introduced the Pension Scheme by framing the Regulations called as Panjab University Employees (Pensions) Regulations, 1991. Those regulations, which have been issued u/s 31(2)(e) of the Panjab University Act, 1947, were published in the Government of India Gazette on February 23, 2006. These regulations were made applicable to the employees of the Panjab University who joined service under the University before 1.1.2004. Vide Regulation 1.2(b), the employees who retired prior to the date of notification of these regulations, were given opportunity to specifically elect to be governed by these regulations by exercising an option as provided in Regulation 1.8.
Regulation 1.8 provides as under:-
1.8 (a) The employees who joined the service of the University before the date of notification of these regulations shall have the option-
(i) to continue to be governed by the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme contained in Chapter VI "Conditions of Service of University Employees" of the Panjab University Calendar, Vol. I, 1994.
OR
(ii) to elect to be governed by the Pensionary Scheme contained in these Regulations.
(b)(i) In the case of an employee who elects the alternative under sub-clause (a)(ii) above, the total contribution of the University to his C.P. Fund Account as on 24.10.2005 or the date of retirement whichever is earlier, along with interest thereon, shall be transferred from his C.P. Fund Account for being credited to the University Pension Fund (Corpus).
(ii) The employee''s share of C.P. Fund, as on 24.10.2005, along with interest thereon, shall be transferred to his General Provident Fund Account to which he shall subscribe compulsorily under the rules of that fund as prescribed by the University from time to time.
(c) The option shall have to be exercised within such period as may be decided by the Syndicate and once exercised shall be final and irrevocable.
(d) Those who fail to exercise the option within the period prescribed under Clause (c) above shall be deemed to have elected for continuing under the C.P. Fund and Gratuity Schemes mentioned in sub-clause a (i) above.
(e) The employees who retired prior to 24.10.2005 may, if they so desire, elect to be governed by these Pension Regulations, subject to the condition that they refund the University''s C.P. Fund contribution, including interest thereon, as received by them from the University for being credited to the University Pension Fund (Corpus). The University would neither charge any interest on this amount of the University share of C.P. Fund received by a retiree for the period from the date of his retirement up to the date of his joining the Pension Scheme nor would pay any arrear of pension. The pension may be made available to the employees from the date they deposit their University share of C.P. Fund, including interest thereon.
Clause(c) of the aforesaid Regulation provides that the employees who retired prior to 24.10.2005 may, if they so desire, elect to be governed by these Pension Regulations, subject to the condition that they refund the University''s C.P. Fund contribution, including interest thereon, as received by them from the University for being credited to the University Pension Fund (Corpus).
Regulation 5.2 provides that in the event of death after retirement, family pension is admissible only if the retiree was in receipt of pension at the time of death.
Undisputedly in the present case when the aforesaid Regulations were notified in the official Gazette of the Government of India on February 23, 2006, the husbands of the petitioners had not only retired much prior to the introduction of the Pension Scheme but also expired (except the husbands of petitioners No. 5 and 8, who expired while in service). After the retirement, they received the benefits whatsoever they were entitled under the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme contained in Chapter VI of the Panjab University Calendar, Vol. I, 1994. When the Pension Scheme, which was introduced by the aforesaid Regulations, was implemented and an option was given to the retired employees to opt for the Pension Scheme, the husbands of the petitioners were not alive as they had already expired. The petitioners'' representation made to the University authority to permit them to exercise the option and to deposit the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme in order to get the family pension, was declined by the University as it was held that the legal heirs of the deceased employees could not be allowed to exercise option to adopt the Pension Scheme, in view of Pension Regulation 1.8. It were only the retired employees and were alive at the time of introduction of the Pension Scheme, who were allowed to switch over from Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme to the Pension Scheme from the date they deposit their University share of C.P. Fund, including interest thereon.
It has been argued by the learned counsel that at one stage the University Syndicate had recommended to the Vice Chancellor that the benefit of family pension may be extended to the employees who had since expired either before or after their retirement but without exercising the option of pension under the Pension Scheme. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 30.1.2010 authorized the Vice Chancellor to take the decision in this regard. However, the Vice Chancellor vide impugned order Annexure P-13 has rejected the representation of the petitioners in view of the decision of the Pension Committee constituted by him.
Faced with the difficulty that as per the aforesaid Pension Regulation the right of option was given only to the retired employees, who were alive at the time of the Regulations and not to the legal heirs of the deceased employees who had died prior to coming into force of the Pension Regulation, learned counsel argued that Regulations 5.2 and 1.8 are discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been argued that these Regulations create two classes on the basis of living and non-living of the retiree (i.e. one of the retired employees who are alive and the other of the retired employees who had expired prior to the date of notification of the Regulations) in the matter of opting the pension Regulation. By the said irrational and arbitrary clarifications, the very purpose of grant of pension has been defeated. The widows of the retired employees, whose husbands had died prior to the coming into force of the Pension Regulations, have been denied the family pension because their husbands were not available to opt for the Family Pension Scheme. Had the husbands of the petitioners been alive they would have got full pension and after their death their widows would have got the family pension.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find that the aforesaid Regulations, particularly Regulation 1.8, are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India in any manner. Vide Regulation 1.8 an option was given to the employees who had retired prior to the date of notification of the Regulations and who joined service under the University before 1.1.2004 to give option to continue to be governed either by the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme or to be governed by the Pension Scheme. The employees who retired prior to 24.10.2005 may, if they had so desired, could have elected to be governed by these Pension Regulations, subject to the condition that they refunded the University''s C.P. Fund contribution, including interest thereon, as received by them from the University for being credited to the University Pension Fund (Corpus). But unfortunately in the present case on the date of publication of the Regulations the retired employees had already expired. The legal heirs of such employees were rightly not given the option under the Regulations to opt for the Pension Scheme because such option is given to the retirees and not to their legal heirs. If as a matter of policy such right is given to the retirees and not extended to the legal heirs, it cannot be said that Pension Regulation to that extent is arbitrary. Thus, by not providing the option to the legal heirs of the deceased employees under the Regulations, no discrimination has been caused. The death of a person is not in the hands of an individual but in the hands of the Almighty who is the supreme commander of this universe. Therefore, in our opinion in the Regulations by not providing the option to the legal heirs of the deceased employees, no discrimination has been caused to the said class. All those employees, who were alive and had opted for the aforesaid Regulation, would have been entitled for pension under the Pension Scheme, and after their death, their widows would have been entitled for family pension. But the retired employee, who had already expired before coming into force of the Pension Scheme, in the absence of exercise of option by him for switching over from the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme to the Pension Scheme, he could not be allowed the family pension. The object of the Regulations is to introduce optional Pension Scheme to the employees of the University and the option was also given not only to the serving employees but also to the retired employees, who were alive at that time and who exercised their option to adopt the Pension Scheme. If the retired employee had expired much earlier to the introduction of the Pension Scheme, non grant of family pension to the widow or the legal heirs of such employee, cannot be said to be discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Further, with respect to representation of legal heirs of deceased employees who died prior to the implementation of Pension Scheme to exercise option to adopt the Pension Scheme, the Syndicate in its meeting dated 30.1.2010 authorized the Vice Chancellor to take decision in consultation with Prof. Keshav Malhotra and Dr. Karamjeet Singh, who recommended to allow the legal heirs of such employees to opt for pension on sympathetic grounds. It is pertinent to mention that the Vice Chancellor further referred the matter to the Pension Committee, which in its meeting dated 17.3.2011 observed that as per Regulation, such option cannot be exercised by the heirs. However, since as per decision of the Syndicate the Vice chancellor was authorized to take the decision in the matter, the Vice Chancellor approved the observation of the Pension Committee that the legal heirs of deceased employees cannot be allowed to exercise option to adopt the Pension Scheme, in view of Pension Regulation 5.2 and 1.8. Therefore, in our opinion, the decision taken by the Vice Chancellor, who is the final authority, on the basis of the observations made by the Pension Committee constituted by him, is not contrary to the Regulations. Thus in view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.