S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) SHORT but substantial questions, which have risen to surface for consideration in this writ petition are: (1) whether teachers of a University governed by the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (In short the 'Act') retiring at the age of 60 years, whether on option or otherwise, are eligible for payment of pension, to be computed on the basis of pay last drawn by them at the time of their superannuation notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Government Order (In short the 'CO.') No. 2148/15 -(15) -1983 -46(14)/83 dated 24th Dec. 1983?; (ii) whether for the purposes of computation of pension of such teachers, the service rendered by them upto the age of 58 years only, has to be reckoned with?; and (iii) whether death -cum -retirement gratuity is admissible and payable to the teachers of University governed by the Act only upon their option for pension, death -cum -retirement gratuity, family pension and General Provident Fund in accordance with the G.O. afore -stated and consequent retirement at the age of 58 years? The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner who was Reader in Politics Department of the University of Allahabad, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 12.4.1984. It transpires that in consideration of the demand made by the Teachers of the University, through Teachers Association, for better social security, the State Government formulated a scheme, for post retiral benefits of University Teachers, vide G.O. No. 2148/15 -(15) 1983 -46(14)/83 Shiksha (10) Anubhag Lucknow dated 24th Dec. 1983 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). The scheme visualised two packages leaving it to the teachers to opt for one of these. According to one option the University Teachers, who opt for retirement at the age of 58 years, would be entitled to pension, death -cum retirement gratuity, family pension and General Provident Fund, while according to the other the teachers could opt for retirement at the would not be getting death -cum -retirement gratuity and will have to be content with pension, family pension and General Provident Fund. The policy contained in the preamble of the said G.O. reads as below.
(2.) THE aforesaid terminal benefits could be given to teachers on fulfillment of following amongst other conditions. Pertinently, it may be observed that even Section 33 of the Act enjoined upon every University, an obligation to constitute, for the benefit of its officers, teachers and other employees, in such manner and subject to such conditions, as may be specified by general or special order, by the State Government, such pension, insurance or Provident Fund as it may deem fit including fund from which such teachers or their heirs as the case may be, shall be paid pension or gratuity in the event of their incurring disability, wound or 'death in connection with discharge of their duties as Superintendent of a Centre or Invigilator as defined in U.P. Universities (Provision regarding conduct of Examination) Act, 1965. The obligation so cast on Universities, no doubt, creates a corresponding right in favour of officers, teachers and other employees to claim from the concerned University such pension etc; but stark reality of the fact is that the teachers of the Universities governed by the Act were not getting terminal/pensionary benefits prior to the enforcement of the scheme visualised by the G.O. dated 24.12.1983 despite the fact that the teachers of Universities did have a right u/s. 33 of the Act to 'be paid pension' which necessarily implies payment of superannuation pension.
(3.) STATUTE 16.24 of the First Statute of the Allahabad University, prescribes 60 years as the age of superannuation of teachers of University governed by the 'new scale' of pay, which means the scale of pay admissible to teachers in accordance with the G.O. No. Shiksha -15 -9045/15 -(7) -73 dated Dec. 28, 1974, as amended from time to time. The petitioner was governed by 'new scale' of pay and had attained the age of 58 years before introduction of the new pension scheme formulated by G.O. dated 24.12.1983 (Annexure -1 to the petition) but since he retired at the age of 60 years, he has not only been denied death -cum -retirement gratuity, but his pension has been calculated on the basis of the pay, he was drawing at the age of 58 years.;