STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus A.N. MATHUR & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 11 S.C.R. 240 · Decided: 23-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 240 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
V. 
AN. MATHUR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8469 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) 
Service Law - Retiral benefits - Payment of - Change 
in policy - Resolutions passed by the Board of Management 
C of the University in relation to giving options to the University 
employees for changing from Contributory Provident Fund 
scheme to Pension Scheme - Change effected subsequently 
set aside by the appellant-State - Justification - Held: Though 
the University is an autonomous body, any financial liability 
o incurred by it is to be ultimately discharged with the financial 
help of appellant-State - lnspite of the clear and unambiguous 
provisions of s. 39, the Board of Management of the University 
did not get necessary assent of the Chancellor, i.e. the 
Governor of the State before effecting the change in the 
E scheme with regard to payment of the retiral benefits to its 
employees -
The University could not have unilaterally 
decided to give huge financial benefit to its employees without 
taking consent of the Chancellor, i.e. the Governor of the State 
in violation of s.39 - Control exercised by the State on the 
F University in the financial matters is completely justified - The 
State was entitled to reject the change effected by the 
University - Rajasthan Agricultural University, Udaipur Act, 
2000 - ss.2(h) rlw s.8 and ss.38 and 39 - Pension Rules, 
1990. 
G 
The University in question is an autonomous body 
constituted under the Rajasthan Agricultural University, 
Udaipur Act, 2000, but dependent on the appellant-State 
in its financial matters, especially in relation to 
expenditure pertaining to salary and allowances given to 
H 
240 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. A.N. MATHUR 
241 
its employees. On 7th December, 2000, the Board of A 
Management of the University passed resolution giving 
option to its employees to either continue under the 
existent Contributory Provident Fund Scheme or opt for 
a pension scheme under the Pension Rules, 1990. 
Another resolution in this regard was passed by the 
B 
Board of Management of the University on 18th 
December, 2009. 
Before giving option under the resolutions dated 7th 
December, 2000 and 18th December, 2009, the University C 
had not consulted the appellant. Upon getting 
information about the Pension Scheme, the appellant, 
under its order dated 3rd June, 2011, did not approve the 
same. When the order dated 3rd June, 2011 issued by the 
appellant was communicated to the University, by order 
dated 30th November, 2011, the University withdrew its 
D 
resolutions dated 7th December, 2000 and 18th 
December, 2009. 
The University employees approached the High 
Court by filing several writ petitions. The High Court 
E 
quashed the order dated 3rd June, 2011 passed by the 
appellant, and, therefore the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. According to Section 39 of the Act, it was 
F 
obligatory on the part of the Board of Management of the 
University to submit the resolutions dated 7th December, 
2000 and 18th December, 2009 to tha Chancellor i.e. to 
the Governor of the State of Rajasthan before inviting 
options from the employees. The High Court ought not G 
to have constrained the University to continue to pay 
pension to the respondent-employees, especially in view 
of the fact that the change effected in the payment of 
retiral benefits to the employees was never approved by 
the Chancellor of the University as required under 
H 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 
A Section 39 of the Act. [Paras 23, 27] (250-H; 251-A; 252-
B-C] 
2. The provisions in Section 39 of the Act are of vital 
importance because the legislature wanted to have some 
8 control over the University, though the University is an 
autonomous body. The reason behind having such a 
control could be for the fact that the University is given 
substantial financial assistance by the appellant as seen 
from the provisions of Section 36 of the Act. Any financial 
C liability incurred by the University is to be ultimately 
discharged by the University with the financial help of the 
appellant-State. [Para 28] [252-D-E] 
3. lnspite of the clear and unambiguous provisions 
of Section 39 of the Act, the Board of Management of the 
D University did not get necessary assent of the 
Chancellor, i.e. the Governor of the State of Rajasthan 
before effecting the change in the scheme with regard to 
payme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.