Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has claimed pension at the rate of Rs.23,500 with effect from October 1, 2001 in place and stead of Rs.21,546 that he is receiving and consequential benefits.
(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the University is bound by the circular dated May 3, 2015/May 6, 2015 issued by the University Grants Commission. Such circular has delinked qualifying period of service from 32 years and has reduced it to 20 years. The petitioner having retired on September 30, 2001, and having rendered full period of service under such circular is entitled to pension at the full amount. Denial of full pension by the University is wrong. Consequently, the decision dated October 30, 2014 taken by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department cannot be sustained. He has relied upon (Union of India v. S.R. Dhingra & Ors., 2008 2 SCC 229) (D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, 1983 1 SCC 305), (T.S. Thiruvengadam v. Secretary to Government of India, 1993 2 SCC 174), (Dhan Raj & Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors., 1998 4 SCC 30), (Union of India & Anr. v. SPS Vains (Retd.) & Ors., 2008 9 SCC 125) and (V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay & Anr., 1998 8 SCC 30) in support of his contentions.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the University has submitted that, the petitioner had retired on September 13, 1996. Subsequent to his retirement, the petitioner was granted re-employment. The term of re-employment expired on September 20, 2001. He has referred to the re-employment provisions of the University and submitted that, the petitioner was re-employed in terms of such provisions. He has submitted that, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for.;