- (1.) HEARD Sri C. K. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. N. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Hindi Department of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidypeeth Varanasi on 28.10.1978. He retired on 7.4.1995. Prior to his appointment in Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, he served as Lecturer in Hindi in Tinsukia Degree College, Assam from 2.9.1967 to 17.10.1978. After retirement, the petitioner made an application that his pension be fixed after adding the period of his service as Lecturer in Tinsukia Degree College, Assam. The resolution dated 28/29.10.1991 passed by the Executive Council of the Kashi Vidyapeeth has been relied for the said purpose including clause 15.05(c) of the First Statute of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi. The Registrar of the University wrote a letter on 10.4.1994 to the State Government referring to the Government order dated 24.10.1983. The Registrar informed the petitioner that since no reply has been sent by the State Government, his services as Lecturer in Tinsukia Degree College, Assam cannot be added. The petitioner also sent representation for adding his period of service as Lecturer in Hindi in Tinsukia Degree College, Assam. Various correspondences in this regard between the University and the State Government have been brought on record. The petitioner filed this writ petition praying for the following reliefs: "1- writ of mandamus directing the respondent to re-calculate pension and other benefit payable to the petitioner, in accordance with Statute 15.05 of Mahatma Gandhy Vidya Peeth Varanasi and his earlier services in other institution be added to his service in Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidya Peeth. 2- issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give benefits of the past services of 11 years and 1 month and 16 days rendered as Hindi Lecturer at Tinshkia Degree College, Assam for the purpose of fixation of post retirement benefits. 3- issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to calculate and to fix the post retirement dues including monthly benefits after taking into consideration the past services of 11 years, 1 month and 16 days rendered by the petitioner as Hindi Lecturer at Tinshkia Degree College, Assam. 4- Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 and 2 to decide the recommendation dated 8.4.2000 made by the Registrar (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) and to decide the representation dated 2.1.2001 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition). 5- issue in alternative, a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 6.4.2000 (Annexure-11)." The writ petition was earlier heard by a" Division Bench of this Court and was allowed on 31.3.2003, following the Division Bench judgment of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Shanker Saran v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 7.12.1999 with the direction to add the petitioner's service rendered at Tinsukia Degree College Assam for the purpose of pension. Against the said judgment, an appeal was filed by the State of U.P. before the Apex Court being Civil Appeal No. 2945 of 2006, State of U.P. v. Laxmi Shanker, which was disposed of by the Apex Court noticing the Division Bench judgment in the case of Dr. Shanker Saran v. State of U.P. and others (supra). The apex Court set aside the order of the Division Bench allowing the writ petition, by the following order: "A perusal of the said order would- show that there was absolutely no discussion by the Bench as to why the said direction in regard to the petitioner's pension was issued. The order, in our opinion, is non-speaking. Aggrieved by the said order, the State of U.P. & ors preferred special leave petition before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court on 27.9.2000 on the ground of delay in approaching this Court. The special leave petition was not disposed of by this Court on merit. In the impugned order also, except adopting the reason given by the order dated 7.12.1999, no other reason was given by the Division Bench. Before us, several legal contentions have been raised by Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel for the State and also countered by Mr. Rohan Thanavi, learned counsel for the respondent. In our opinion, the matter required detailed investigation with reference to Section 33 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 and also with reference to the General Order issued under reference No. 2148/Pandrah/15/1983-46(14)1 83 dated 24.12.1983. In our view, Regulation 15.05 of the Statute of the University is also required to be considered for determining the claim of the respondent herein. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court and restore the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9346 of 2001 and request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition within six months from the date of production of copy of order of this Court by either party. In view of the remittal order now passed by us, we set aside the order dated 31.3.2003 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9346 of 2001. Both parties are at liberty to file additional pleadings and documents before the High Court. The question of law is also left open. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs." After the judgment of the Apex Court, the aforesaid writ petition was restored and is now being decided by this. judgment.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions placed reliance on the Government order dated 24.12.1983, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the second supplementary affidavit, specially paragraph 2 (6) of the said Government order. He submits that the services of the petitioner rendered in Tinsukia Degree College, Assam should be added by virtue of paragraph 2 (6) of the Government order dated 24.12.1983. He submits that the petitioner has been ready to deposit the contribution as recommended by the University but no orders were passed to deposit the said contribution, hence, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of adding his services rendered at Tinsukia Degree College, Assam for the purpose of pension. He placed reliance on Statute 15.05 (c) of the First Statute of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi and submits that according to the aforesaid Statute the services rendered in a college outside the State of U.P. shall be added to length of service, the same principle will be applied for computation of pension also. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the University submits that the matter is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. A.P. Paliwal v. State of U.P., 2010 (8) ADJ 68. He submits that Full Bench after considering the Government order dated 24.12.1983 held that period of service rendered in an institution out side the State of U.P. cannot be added for the purpose of computation of pension. He submits that on the recommendation sent by the University, the State Government sent a reply on 8.5.2000 annexing the order of 6.4.2000, declining to add the period of service rendered in other State on the ground that there is no provision to add the said period. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that matter is covered by Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. A. P. Paliwal (supra) and there is no provision for adding the services rendered in other State.;