V.L. Kallapur vs Karnatak University Dharwad

K.N. Phaneendra, J—The petitioner is a senior citizen approached this court submitting that he was a retired Professor from the service of the respondent - University in the year 1989. Prior to his appointment as Demonstrator in the year 1969, the petitioner was awarded UGC Research Training Scholarship by the President for a period of three years. Subsequently, in the year 1969 precisely on 9.9.1969, the petitioner was appointed as a Demonstrator in the Department of Zoology, Karnataka University, Dharwad. In the year 1972, the petitioner completed his Ph.D., in the field of Zoology from Karnataka University, Dharwad on 3.8.1999 after serving nearly 30 years. The petitioner retired as Professor from the respondent - University. The Government has fixed the pension from the date of his appointment taking his service from the date of his appointment and not taken into consideration the period undergone by him so far as the UGC research Training is concerned. Therefore, the petitioner on 27.6.2011 made a representation to the respondent requesting to consider the said period undergone by him in the UGC Research Training as qualified service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. On 5.7.2011 the Coordinator legal cell submitted a legal opinion to the Syndicate which is marked at Annexure-C wherein he has opined that the respondent can exercise the discretion and can include such fellow ship training for the purpose of considering the pensionary benefits. On the basis of the opinion of the legal cell, on 10.05.2012, the syndicate of the respondent passed a resolution, to positively consider the request of the petitioner. It appears, subsequently, the respondent also sought for an opinion from the Finance Officer, who has opined that the request of the petitioner for recognising training period for pensionary benefits cannot be considered. Accordingly, it appears, on the basis of such opinion of the Finance Officer, on 21.1.2015, an endorsement was issued by the respondent stating that the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted for re-fixation of his pension. Questioning the said endorsement issued by the respondent, the petitioner is before this court.

On perusal of the entire material on record, the Syndicate of the respondent has positively responded to the representation made by the petitioner. In fact, the legal opinion submitted by the co-ordinator legal cell interpreting Rule 246 of the KCSR Rules in a proper manner suggested that the petitioner''s request can be considered. Based on that, the syndicate which is the highest body of the respondent - University has taken a firm decision on relying the Rule 246 of KCSR, which says that it is the discretion of the Government to recognise the training period for fixing the pension and such discretion was exercised and resolved that, the pension of the petitioner can be fixed by considering his request. When once the said resolution has been passed, it is astonishing factor as to why, again they sought for a report of the Finance Officer of the University for the purpose of considering the request of the petitioner. As could be seen from Rule 246 of KCSR which reads as follows:

"246. Government may, at its discretion, decide in the case of a Government servant (including a person under training but not actually appointed to Government service) who is selected to undergo a course of training, whether the period shall count as service qualifying for pension.

Note 1: - The period of successful training in the Dehra Dun Forest school in continuation of qualifying service and followed by a substantive appointment in the Forest Department counts.

Note 2:- Teachers in Government employ passing through a course of instruction in normal institution with or without a stipend will be permitted to count the time spent in such an institution as service towards pension, notwithstanding that while receiving such instruction they are treated as being absent from their appointments on leave without allowances."

(emphasis supplied)

On meaningful understanding of the above said provision, the discretion can be exercised by the authorities to decide in a given case of a Government servant LC, to say the Government servant include the person who was appointed by the Government or not even actually appointed as a Government servant, if he has undergone any training prior to entering into the service or after entering into the service and that period shall count as service qualifying for pension.

Note I and Note II appended to this particular Rule 246 of KCSR Rules only gives an explanation as to the training taken by the other officers who are also eligible for pension under this provision. Therefore, it is clear from the above said provision, it will not debar the Government from exercising its discretion even in favour of a person who was not actually in Government service and even much prior to the joining of the Government service, he has undergone such training. The authority/respondent has to see whether such training taken by the person was benefited the institution in any manner while the said person has served the institution for such a long period. The respondent has to exercise sound discretion in order to consider the request of the petitioner considering his long length of service and the equipment he acquired by means of training and benefit that has been enured to the department throughout the service of the petitioner etc. The respondent - University itself has got such power under Rule 246 of the KCSR Rules.

The Finance Officer has in fact mis-understood the aid provision of Rule 246 of the KCSR Rules, observing that the training period can be considered only where it is a precondition to the service as in case of IAS, IFS and etc, service or any police service. The period of research undergone by petitioner cannot a pre-condition for the purpose of appointment as a teacher. The said interpretation is not proper. The said rule does not say that only such Officers who have undergone training as a precondition or on the direction of the Government or the employee then only they are entitled for such relief. It is clear from the interpretation of Rule 246 of the KCSR Rules that it is not a pre-condition that the said training shall be undergone in connection with his appointment.

Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the respondent has not properly appreciated the surrounding circumstances prevailing and not properly considered the valuable length of service rendered by the petitioner and also not properly appreciated and interpreted Rule 246 of the KCSR Rules and only on the basis of the opinion of the Finance Officer, the endorsement has been issued which is called in question before this Court. The said endorsement on plain reading, does not give any reasons for rejection of the request of the petitioner and there is nothing to show that the respondent on considering all the facts and circumstances of the case exercised its discretion as contemplated under Rule 246 of the KCSR Rules. Therefore, it is inevitable for this court to once again direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh looking into the surrounding circumstances and also long length of service rendered by the petitioner and the department being benefited by such service including the training taken by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. In the light of the observations made above, the order passed by the respondent which is at Annexure-F in No. KU/DPAR/T/214/4043 is hereby quashed and the respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.