LexSTATE OF RATASTHAN AND ANR. versus AMRIT LAL GANDHI AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
)
,.
STATE OF RATASTHAN AND ANR.
A
v.
AMRIT LAL GANDHI AND ORS.
JANUARY 10, 1997
fJ.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.)
B
Service Law:
Jodhpur University Pension Regulations, 199{)-Pension-Cut-off
date-Pension scheme-Committee appointed by University Grants Commis-
C
sion in 1986 made recommendations for introducing Pension scheme but
Syndicate and Senate of University forwarded the recommendations but no
date was specified for that purpose-State Govemment approved introduction
of pension scheme w.e.f 1.1.1990-Subsequently, cabinet of University gave
its approval, pension mies framed and teachers in se1vice on or after 1.1.1990
given option to be covered by said pension scheme-Held : In such cir- D
cumstances, fu:ation of cut-off date as J.1.1990 and not 1.1.1986, not arbitrary
or without any reason-Jodhpur University General Provident Fund Regula-
tions, 1990.
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136.
Parties-Revised Pension Scheme-Introduced by University after ap-
proval by State Govemment-High Court held the scheme applicable w.e.f
1.1.1986-0nly State Govemment and not University filed appeal against
High Courts' decision-Supreme Court held pension scheme applicable w.e.f
E
l. l.199o--Held : High Court's judgment still not given effect to-{]niversity F
chose not to file since State had filed one-in the circumstances, non-filing
of appeal by University could not be interpreted as the university's acceptance
of the correctness of the High Court's decision.
The respondents were teachers of University and Colleges and were
originally governed by contributory provident fund rules and there was no G
-1-
pension scheme, which was applicable, to them. A Committee constituted
by the University Grants Commission in 1986 recommended for extending
pension-cum-gratuity scheme for the respondents. Pursuant to the said
recommendations, resolutions were passed by the Syndicate and Senate of
the University for the introduction of pensionary scheme in the University H
121
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997] 1 S.C.R.
A but no date was specified for that purpose. Under that scheme the respon-
dents could opt either for contributory provident fund or for pension in
lieu of provident fund. As the proposed scheme had financial implications,
the University had to seek approval of the Government. The State Govern-
mmt had decided to introduce the pension scheme in the Universities of
B
c
the State w.e.f. 1.1.1990. Pursuant thereto the cabinet of the University
approved the resolutions of the Syndicate and the Senate. Thereafter,
Pension Regulations 1990 and General Provident Fund Regulations 1990
were framed and options were invited (rom all persons who were in the
service of the University on or after 1.1.1990 to give their options for being
governed by either of the Regulations.
The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming
revised pension scheme w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1990. The High Court
allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved the appellant-State preferred the
present appeal. But the University did not file any appeal.
D
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the State Govern- '
E
ment having decided, as a matter of policy, that the revised pension scheme
was to be applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1990 the said decision could not be chal-
lenged; and that as the State had filed an appeal, the University chose not
to file one of its own. ·
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that since the Univer-
sity did not file an appeal it must be regarded that the University had
accepted the correctness of the decision of the High Court and, therefore,
the revised pension scheme should be made applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
F
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. There is no justification for the High Court having
substituted the date of 1.1.1986 in lieu of 1.1.1990. It is evident that for
introducing a pension scheme, which envisaged financial implications,
approval of the State Government was required. The Syndicate and Senate
G of the Universities, when they had fonvarded their recommendations in
1986 did not mention a specific date with effect from which the pension
scheme was to be made applicable. Their recommendations were subject
to approval. The approval was granted by the Government, after the State
Legislature had passed University Pension Rules and General Provident
H Fund Rules. The Government had stated in its affidaviExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.