Union of India & Ors. v. Radharanjan Pattanaik & Ors.

1. In these appeals, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the common order of the Learned Single Judge passed on 13th May, 2013 (“impugned order”) in WP(C)/8032/2009 and WP(C)/8090/2009. The respondent employees in these appeals (the successful Writ Petitioners), had sought entitlement to pension as was available to 2013:DHC:4675-DB LPA No. 677/2013 Page | 2 other employees of the Visva-Bharati University (“respondent University”) who had completed ten years of continuous service. The respondent University, on the basis of a memo issued by the appellant on 30th August, 2007, had stopped pension by its letter/order dated 20th December, 2008 (“impugned letter”) to the AERC staff of the University. The Learned Single Judge, having examined the facts of the case, had quashed the said notification and directed the appellants to make necessary budgetary allocations to ensure that the respondent University gets the finances for payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioners. Likewise, the respondent University was directed to release the pensionary benefits within three months of the order. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, the appellants have preferred the aforesaid appeals.

2. The facts are that the Agro Economic Research Centre (“AERC”) were established in 1954 under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India and, over the years, spawned into fifteen such centres in different states. The objectives of the AERCs were: “(i) To conduct investigations into specified Agro Economic problems of the Country.

(ii) To carry out continuous studies on the rural economy.

(iii) To carry out research work on structural changes and fundamental problems of Agriculture economy and rural development.

(iv) To give technical advise (sic: advice) to the Union

Government and the State Government.” Essentially, they were supplementing the functions of the Ministry of Agriculture. Deeming it necessary for the effective functioning of the AERCs, the Government approved the proposal to merge the AERCs with the respective universities where they were functioning. As a corollary, the AERC functioning at Santiniketan was merged with the respondent University, by a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23rd March, 2000, (“MOU”) but with effect from 1st April, 1995.

3. Upon the respondent-employees, being denied pensionary benefits, they approached this court in writ proceedings. The Learned Single Judge, in his reasoning, noted the categorical language employed in the MOU particularly where it stated that (a) “the Centre will be integrated to the University”; (b) “the Ministry will release the grants-in-aid according to the approved budget provisions every year”; (c) “the staff of the Centre would be considered at par with the regular employees of the University for all the privileges enjoyed by LPA No. 677/2013 Page | 4 the regular staff of the University, i.e., pension...”; and (d) “future revisions in the scale of pay, of pay and allowance in the posts in the Centre, will (sic) as per provisions effective for similar posts in the University”. The impugned judgment reasoned that the MOU clearly placed the employees of the AERC completely at par with the employees of the respondent University, and that in terms of benefits towards pay scales, pension, provident fund, residential accommodation, and other service benefits, they would be treated identically. It was noted in particular that the Union of India had undertaken to provide sufficient grants-in-aid apropos these employees in terms of regular annual budgetary allocation. He reasoned that it was therefore not open to the Union of India to deny the grants-in-aid / budgetary allocation on the basis of subsequent correspondence with the University, stating that making payments towards pension of these employees was against its policies, the direct result of which would be the denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioners from 23rd December,

2008.

4. The Learned Single Judge further held that: LPA No. 677/2013 Page | 5 “...a reading of the MoU dated 23.3.2000 which came into effect from 1.4.1995 leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent No. 1 will provide all grants-in-aid/financial resources which would be consequent upon employees of AERC becoming employees of the respondent No. 4-University pursuant to MoU without in any manner freezing of budgetary allocation. I am surprised that the respondent No. 1 is in fact taking up a stand which does violation to the language of the MoU because MoU both in letter and spirit provides for entitlement of respondent No. 4-University to necessary budgetary allocation consequent upon employees of AERC becoming employees of the respondent No. 4-University. As already stated above, no less than the Secretary of the respondent No. 1/Ministry of Agriculture signed the MoU. I do not understand therefore how can there at all be any doubt of necessary budget allocation by respondent No.1 to respondent No. 4. Not only there can be no doubt that the budgetary allocation will be given each year so required for the employees of AERC who had become employees of the University, the MoU also takes into care by virtue of Clause (xii) the requirement of additional budgetary allocation because of future revision of scales of pay and allowances. I therefore do not understand how Union of India can argue on the basis of the notification dated 21.5.1990 that clause (3) of the said notification states that there will be no extra financial implications on account of making AERC permanent and the current level of expenditure will not be exceeded. Though para (3) of the notification dated 21.5.1990 surely cannot be read as making level of expenditure because surely there were bound to be appropriate pay revisions, in any case, the notification which is relied upon is 21.5.1990 and the same clearly LPA No. 677/2013 Page | 6 stands superseded by the categorical terms of the later MoU dated 23.3.2000. Therefore, it is not open for the UOI to canvass and contend that budgetary allocation will remain fixed by virtue of the notification dated 21.5.1990, and which in my opinion quite clearly was no longer operative once the MoU dated 23.3.2000 becomes operative. He then concluded that: “The petitioners have legal rights as the employees of respondent No. 4, and as per rules/regulations/circulars of respondent No. 4. Refusal to give petitioners pension is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Refusal by respondent No. 1 to give necessary budgetary allocation is also arbitrary hence also violative of Article 14 in view the categorical language of the MoU. Petitioners have enforceable legal rights which are violated.”

5. In this appeal, the same arguments were reiterated as were made before the Learned Single Judge. It was also contended that the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Rajendra Singh v Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad & Ors, in C.M.W.P. No. 6801 of 2002, decided on 22nd February, 2007 dismissed a claim for a similar relief which was sought against Allahabad University by members of the AERC attached to that university. On the strength of the Dr. Rajendra Singh case, it was sought to be urged before this Court that LPA No. 677/2013 Page | 7 the Learned Single Judge ought to have similarly dismissed the Writ Petition and held the respondent employees to not be entitled to any pensionary benefits. This court notices that the Learned Single Judge, distinguished the facts of Dr. Rajendra Singh with the present case and found that ruling to be inapplicable to the present case. In Dr. Rajendra Singh, the Allahabad High Court had held, on the basis of the terms of the MOU therein and / or the correspondence, that “there was nothing to indicate any promise or representation made or held out to the AERC employees, which was intended to be acted upon”, with respect to pensionary benefits. Accordingly that petition was dismissed. In this case, however, the Learned Single Judge had found the language of the MOU to be categorical and unambiguously in favour of the petitioners – claiming the right to be treated at par with the other employees of the University. He found the impugned letter to be arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, with respect to the enforceable legal rights of the petitioners.

6. This court has considered the arguments of the appellants and finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The language employed in the MOU is clear as daylight and requires no LPA No. 677/2013 Page | 8 interpretation with respect to its intent and import. The objective was clearly that the employees of the AERC attached to the respondent University should be merged with and treated at par with the other employees of the said University and all benefits would be available to these newly merged employees entering into a larger pool of employees as it were. A perusal of the language used in the MOU would clearly set out the intent of the Union of India to first merge and integrate the employees of the AERC and put them at par with those of the University. Having done so on its own, the appellants would be estopped from subsequently disowning them or denying them pensionary benefits that were otherwise guaranteed under the MOU. It is noteworthy that although the said employees were not party to the MOU, the benefits having been granted to them with effect from 1995 cannot be unilaterally withdrawn from or denied to them thirteen years later in 2008. The responsibility towards post-retirement benefits with respect to the employees of the AERC was settled between the Government and the respondent University by transferring the same to the latter on the assurance that the former would give grants-in-aid and adequate annual budgetary allocation to meet the responsibility and LPA No. 677/2013 Page | 9 relevant contingencies. The employees were never consulted for a part of the shift in such responsibility. They were content in the fact that their terms of employment had not been altered to their detriment and had indeed been improved. This cannot be altered unilaterally now, to their detriment. Withdrawing the benefits as per the impugned order would be to leave them in the lurch and to virtually disown them by subterfuge. This act would be unfair and impermissible and would warrant to be quashed. The learned Single judge had done just that.

7. For the reasons aforesaid this court finds no merit in the appeals. Both the appeals are dismissed.

NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE) S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 ‘sn’