S.C. Mathur, A.C.J. - (1.) The petitioner, Jagat Prakash Chaturvedi, has sought a writ of certiorari to quash letter dated 12tb December, 1991 (Annexure-l0) addressed by the Director of information to Deputy Registrar (Administer) of the Banaras Hindu University, for short B.H.U., conveying Governments decision turning down petitioners request for his permanent absorbtion in the service of B.H.U. He has further sought writ of mandamus to command respondents 1 and 2, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh through Ministry of Finance and the Department of Information and Public Relations to remit expeditiously the capitalised value of petitioners pension and gratuity with interest to the University. In the writ petition there are three respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have been mentioned hereinabove. The third respondent is the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi through its Registrar. Notice of the petition on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 was accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel and on behalf of B.H.U. respondent No. 3 by Sri Dinesh Kakkar. Despite opportunity none of the respondents has filed any counter affidavit to oppose the petition. We accordingly proceed to decide the petition on the basis of averments made in the writ petition.
(2.) The petitioners case is thus. The petitioner was working in the Department of Information and Public Relations, U.P. as District Information Officer. He worked in the Department for about 21 years. The petitioner made an application to B.H.U. through proper channel for being appointed Public Relations Officer therein. The application was allowed and the petitioner was permitted by the State Government to join B.H.U. through its order dated 26th December, 1979. In pursuance of the Government sanction the petitioner joined B.H.U. on 28th December, 1979. With effect from 28th December, 1981 he was permanently absorbed in the service of B.H.U. and his lien in the Department of Information and Public Relations of the U.P. Government was terminated. For the purpose of fixation of his pension and gratuity the petitioner requested the authorities of the B.H.U. to include in his service the period of service rendered by him to the State Government The petitioners request was considered by the Executive Council of B.H.U. and resolution was adopted at the meeting held on January 18/19,1986 which reads as follows : "Resolved that the absorbtion of Sri Jagat Prakash Chaturvedi, Information and Public Relations Officer in the B.H.U. be treated in Public interest provided the U.P. State Government agrees to pay capitalised value of pension and gratuity for past services rendered by him with the State Government." A copy of this resolution was sent to the petitioner by the Registrar through his letter dated March 4, 1986. On 1st April, 1986 the Deputy Registrar (Administration) of B.H.U. wrote to the Director of Information and Public Relations, Government of U.P. apprising him of the resolution of the Executive Council and requesting him to convey State Governments approval to pay capitalised value of pension and gratuity for the services rendered by the petitioner in U.P. Government. The petitioner also made similar request to the Director. On 24-1M988 the Director wrote to the petitioner requiring him to send letter of resignation from the service of the State Government affective from the date of his absorbtion v/z. 28-12-1981 as laid down in G.O. dated 4th March, 1971 so that he may be given the benefit of absorption in the service of B.H.U. On 1st April, 1989 the petitioner sent his letter of resignation from the service of the State Government. On 17-2-1990 the Director of Information wrote to Deputy Registrar (Administration) B.H.U. informing him that the State Government had directed to deposit with the Information Department leave/pay contribution of the petitioner for the period 28th December, 1979 to 27th December, 1981 (28th December, 1979 is the date on which the petitioner joined B.H.U. and 27th December, 1981 is the date on which the petitioner claims absorbtion in the services of B.H.U.). This was carried out. Thus decks were cleared for the grant of benefit asked for by the petitioner. However on 12th December, 1991 the Directorate of Information U.P. wrote to Deputy Registrar (Administration) B.H.U. conveying State Government decision turning down petitioners request for permanent absorbtion in the service of B.H.U. The State Government has assigned the following reasons for the decision - (1) the petitioner was appointed in B.H.U. on the basis of his own application ; he was not sent there on deputation in public interest ; (2) in the joining of B.H.U. by the petitioner conditions of deputation were not complied with ; (3) the petitioner has been absorbed in the service of B, H. U. with effect from the date he joined there ; and (4) the petitioner drawn salary in the scale prescribed by B.H.U. He is governed by the conditions of service prescribed by the University. The consequence of this order is that the State Government has declined to remit to B.H.U. capitalised value of pension and gratuity for petitioners period of service with the University.
(3.) The petitioner assails the Impugned order dated 12th December. 1991 on the following grounds. The rejection of petitioners request is based on incorrect appreciation of facts. It is wrongly stated in the said order that the petitioner was not sent on deputation ; in fact the petitioner was sent on deputation and the same is established from the State Governments order dated 26th December, 1979, Annexure-1. It was not for the State Government to decide whether petitioners deputation to B.H.U. was in public interest or other wise ; this decision had to be taken by B.H.U. and B.H.U. had already decided that the petitioners absorption was in public interest. The petitioner never received from the State Government either directly or through B.H.U. the conditions of his deputation and, therefore, it cannot be said that there has been non-compliance of the conditions of deputation. In the absence of conditions of deputation the petitioner had no choice but to be governed by the service rules of B H U. The factum of petitioners deputation was never challenged by the State Government. It was not challenged even in the Directors letter dated 24ih November, 1988 whereby the petitioner was merely required to submit his letter of resignation effective from the date of his absorption in the service of B.H.U. viz., 28th December, 1981. From the Directors letter dated 24-11-1988 it Is apparent that the only hitch in acceptance of petitioners request was lack of letter of resignation from him That letter having been, furnished, rejection of petitioners request is arbitrary. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of his previous service in terms of Central Governments policy contained in Office Memorandum dated 29th August, 1984 issued from the Ministry of Home Affairs, department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Annexure-12, circulated to Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments through letter dated 7-2-1988 issued from the Ministry of Personnel. Public Grievances and Pension, Annexure-11. The same position emerges from Office Memorandum dated 12th September, 1985 issued from the Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances and Pension, Annexure-13. The impugned order is violative of the policy laid down by the Central Government which applies also to the State of U.P.;