- (1.) The petitioner retired as Professor and Head of the Department of Ancient Indian History, Lucknow University on 22nd April, 1988. He was re-employed and was permitted to continue upto the end of session on 30th June, 1988. Thus the petitioner became entitled for pension and other post-retirement benefits from 1st July, 1988. The case of the petitioner is that on 12th June, 1991 a sum of Rs. 54,190/- was paid to him towards commutation of pension which was calculated at the age of 64 years at the rupee value of 8.82 instead of at the age of 61 with rupee value of 9.81. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to Rs. 60,272.60 on account of commutation of pension. The petitioner has been paid arrears of pension from 1st July, 1988 to April, 1991 on 9th May, 1991. He has also been paid Rs. 3,382/- for May, 1991 on 30th June, 1991, Rs. 2,870/- for June 1991 on 4th July, 1991 and Rs. 3,024/- for July, 1991 on 1st August, 1991. Thus arrears of pension have been paid to the petitioner from the date of retirement till July, 1991. The University authorities have also paid a sum of Rs. 27,149.57 on 11th March, 1991 and Rs. 4,250/- on 27th June, 1991 on account of provident fund dues. The petitioner claims that the amount due to him on account of provident fund has not been paid in full and the amount payable to him as pension has also been wrongly withheld since August, 1991.
(2.) It appears that on 7th February, 1991, a G.O-was issued to the effect that the benefits of commutation of pension will be available to those teachers who have retired on or after 14th August, 1988. In view of this G.O., the Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, wrote a letter to the petitioner on 20th November, 1991 informing him that since the date of his retirement is 22nd April, 1988, he is not entitled for commutation of pension as per existing rules and procedure. The petitioner was further informed that his representation has been forwarded by the University to the State Government to clarify the position in this respect and a reply was awaited. The petitioner was also informed that pending the Issue of G.O. regarding his eligibility for commutation of one-fifth pension, he is requested to refund the balance of outstanding amount of Rs. 34,802/-. This balance was worked out after making an adjustment of part of the pension paid to the petitioner on account of commutation towards pension which was payable to him for and after August, 1990. The contention of the petitioner is that the G.O. dated 7th February, 1990 is discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is liable to be struck down.
(3.) The claim of the petitioner for commutation of pension has been contested by the opposite parties. A counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University indicates that the University has taken more or less a neutral attitude in-as-much as the benefit of commutation of pension has been refused by it in the case of the petitioner on account of the impugned G.O. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of U.P. Learned Standing Counsel stated that no instructions have been received and no counter-affidavit is being filed. He has, however, submitted that the impugned G.O. has been issued on the basis of the recommendation of the Pay Commission which was accepted by the State Government, by means of resolution dated 14th August, 1988. A copy the said resolution has been filed as Annexure-23 to the writ petition. The cut-off date, 14th August, 1988 has been incorporated in the impugned G.O. on account of the fact that the resolution of the State Government, accepting the recommendation of the Pay Commission, was issued on that data. But for this fact, nothing has been stated on behalf of the State of U.P. as to why 14th June, 1988 has been selected by the State Government for providing the benefit of commutation of pension to the University teachers who have retired on or after 14th August, 1988.;