ANAND SHARMA Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA
LAWS(P&H)-2013-9-163
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 25,2013

Dr. Mr. Anand Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Kurukshetra University in the year 1990. In the year 1997 the Kurukshetra University had promulgated a pension scheme, option for which had to be exercised by its employees within three months. The petitioner admittedly did not apply for the same. However, the University again gave another option in the year 2000 to such employees who had not opted earlier and in response thereto the petitioner had applied on 29.05.2000. At that stage, however, the Haryana Government had declined permission to the Kurukshetra University to extend the time in granting option. Later on, in the year 2004 the University again took up the matter with the Haryana Government who, on this occasion, permitted the University to extend the time for granting option and consequently the University gave advertisement in the newspaper inviting fresh options. By that time the petitioner had joined respondent No. 5-NIPER, Mohali. It is noteworthy to mention here that he had applied to NIPER through proper channel and had consequently been relieved on his selection. At the time of relieving he had 14 years of service with the Kurukshetra University. It is also admitted that the University had decided to extend the benefit of pro rata pension to its employees who had served more than 10 years and had joined other autonomous body of the Government after applying through proper channel. Once the petitioner joined his subsequent employment with respondent No. 5, he requested that his retiral benefits be transferred to the new employer and admittedly the Kurukshetra University transferred the entire amount standing in the provident fund of the petitioner. Thereafter the Kurukshetra University passed the impugned order whereby the petitioner was informed that he was not entitled for pension and would only be entitled to contractual provident fund and he was, therefore, directed to refund the amount of pro rata pension which had been transferred to respondent No. 5. Hence the present petition.
(2.)In reply the stand taken is that the original option of the petitioner (made on 29.05.2000) could not be extended due to the fact that the Haryana Government had not permitted the same and, since the petitioner did not exercise fresh option in the year 2004 he cannot be held entitled to pension.
(3.)In my opinion this argument cannot be accepted. Once the petitioner had admittedly applied on 29.05.2000, and even if his application could not be acted upon due to want of approval from the Government, once the Government approved a further extension in the year 2004 the earlier application filed by the petitioner should definitely have been acted upon. In fact, as shown above, the University had acted upon the same by subsequently allowing the petitioner the benefit of pro rata pension and thereafter by transferring the amount to the respondent No. 5. Resultantly it is held that the petitioner would be entitled to pro rata pension. Learned Senior counsel for the University has then raised an argument in the alternative. He asserts that the Kurukshetra University had also transferred the entire amount standing to the credit of the petitioner in his provident fund and that also included the contribution of the University. Learned counsel for the petitioner has accepted this fact. In the circumstances even while holding the petitioner entitled to claim pro rata pension, I direct that he should refund the entire amount of contribution of the Kurukshetra University (along with interest he has earned thereon) back to the University. In this connection the University would inform the respondent No. 5 about the exact amount due to it on account of its contribution with a copy to the petitioner and respondent No. 5 is further directed to transmit the said amount to the Kurukshetra University within one month thereafter.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.