Siddaramaiah Pujar vs The University Grants Commission and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner, Dr. Siddaramaiah Pujar, is aggrieved by the letter dated 28-5-2014 sent by the respondent No. 1, the University Grants Commission (for short, the U.G.C.), whereby the U.G.C. has denied the benefit of pension to him.

The brief facts of the case are that after working for fifteen years in the Indian Air Force, the petitioner joined the Indira Gandhi National Open University (for short, ''the IGNOU''), and worked there till 11-3-1997. On 12-3-1997, he left the IGNOU and joined the National Assessment & Accreditation Council (for short, ''the NAAC'') as an Administrative Officer. The service benefits of the petitioner such as Provident Fund, Gratuity were transferred from IGNOU to NAAC.

Since the benefit of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, were not extended to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, they filed a writ petition before this Court, namely Writ Petition No. 13503/2006. The said Writ Petition came to be decided by this Court wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents seeking the benefit of pension.

Meanwhile, the petitioner, while discharging his duties as an Administrative Officer, submitted an application for the post of Director at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Textiles Management, Coimbatore, in 2007. On 28-2-2008, the petitioner was selected as the Director of the said Institute. Therefore, on 31-3-2008, the petitioner resigned from the NAAC and joined the Institute as a Director.

It is the case of the petitioner that Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, were made applicable in 2009, since the said Rules were made applicable to those who were on rolls of NAAC before 1-1-2004, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of pension Rules. Hence, the petitioner made series of representation to the U.G.C., and to the Director of NAAC for getting the benefit of pension. Since these representations did not solicit any response, he submitted a writ petition before this Court, namely Writ Petition No. 23292/2011. By order dated 12-1-2012, this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner for pension. Since the said direction of the Court was not carried out, the petitioner filed a Civil Contempt, namely C.C.C. No. 612/2012. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, a statement was made by the respondents that they have forwarded the petitioner''s representation to the U.G.C. Therefore, the contempt petition was disposed of by this Court. Subsequently, on 2-7-2013, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director of NAAC for considering his case for grant of pension under the pension scheme. He also submitted another representation on 1-10-2013. These representations were forwarded to the U.G.C. By order dated 28-5-2014, the U.G.C. has declined to grant the benefit of pension to the petitioner. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Mr. M. Narayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the petitioner was working at NAAC, he was entitled to the benefit of pensionary Rules of 1972. Therefore, the reason given by the U.G.C. for declining to grant the benefit of pension is unsustainable. Hence, the letter dated 28-5-2014 deserves to be set aside.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order.

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that according to the U.G.C., the petitioner is disentitled in claiming the benefit of pension inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner was neither taken voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, nor his appointment as the Director of the Institute was a permanent one. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged these two grounds. He has merely contended before this Court that since the Rules were applicable to the NAAC, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Rules.

The stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable. For the simple reason the pension Rules were made applicable to NAAC in 2009, but the petitioner had already resigned from the service of NAAC on 31-3-2008. Hence, the relationship of employer and employee was severed on 31-3-2008 by his letter of resignation. In case the contention raised by the learned counsel was accepted, it would tantamount to giving a retrospective effect to the Rules of 1972. Since on the date of resignation, the NAAC was not a pensionary Institute, and did not have any pensionary scheme, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of these Rules after resigning from the NAAC.

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the petition; it is hereby dismissed.