Mrs. Sushama C. Pendharkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

1. This Petition is listed in the ‘Prioritised Cases’ category. It was heard yesterday and today for a long time.

2. This Petition has been lodged on 8th December, 2008 by the Petitioner, who did not receive pension for 5 years after she superannuated on 31.10.2003. The prolonged wait for 5 years, even after issuing a legal notice through her Advocate, which was met with a reply of the University dated 12.6.2008, disowning her very engagement and employment with the University, prompted the Petitioner to approach this Court. She is around 84 years of age today.

3. The facts of her case are quite clear. She had made an application dated 24.12.1984 for appointment as a Research Officer, to the University. She was interviewed by the University on 8.2.1985. By an appointment order dated 18.3.1985, issued on the letter head of the Pune University (presently, the Savitribai Phule Pune University) and signed by the Registrar, she was appointed as a Research Officer. She was placed in the Rs. 1200-50-1300-60-1900 pay scale and her basic pay was fixed at Rs. 1200/-, along with all University approved allowances, including Vehicle Allowance. She was deployed with the University’s Educational Research Centre as a Research Officer.

4. Considering the controversy before us, wherein Pune University disowns the engagement of the Petitioner on it’s roles, we deem it appropriate to reproduce clauses (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the appointment order dated 18.3.1985, hereunder: “3. आपली नेमणूक पणू वि द्या प ठ क यदा, १९७४ त्य खा ली ली अधि विनेयम, अध्य दाश विनेयम से विनेयम, १९६३ य म ली तरतदा त्य म ली बदाली सेह वि द्या प ठ ळो& ळो जे विनेयम कर ली त विनेयम, तसेच श सेने ने से शत)मध्य बदाली कल्य से त्य अनेषं,गा ने ह&णू र विनेयम त ली बदाली, ह से. विनेयम आपणू र ब, नेक रक र हत ली. ४. वि द्या प ठ से त रुजे ह&ण्य प ) आपणू म. स्था य 3द्याक4य अधि क र, आर&ग्य क 6 द्र, पणू वि द्या प ठ, पणू-७ य,च्य कडूने आणिणू / अथा त सेच त ली त्य तज्ञा कडूने आपली 3द्याक4य तप सेणू कर ने घ्य. वि द्या प ठ से त नेमण्य से 3द्याक4यदृषं>ट्या प त्र असेल्य से,ब, च दा खाली म. स्था य 3द्याक4य अधि क र य,ने विदाल्य ने,तरच आपणू से वि द्या प ठ से त रुजे करुने घेतली जे ईली. ५. वि द्या प ठ से त रुजे ह&त ने आपणू श3क्षणिणूक प त्रत, जेन्मत र खा, अनेभ जे त च दा खाली इत्य दा से,ब, च मळो प्रम णूपत्र कक्ष धि क र, प्रश सेने वि भ गा य,चकडू से दार कर त. आपणू सेध्य ने&कर त असेल्य से त्य विठक णूच मळो तने आणिणू भत्ते, तनेश्रेणू, तने ढी च त र खा इत्य दा दाश.वि णू र विनेय&क्त्त्य च प्रम णूपत्र तसेच ने&कर तने मक्त कल्य च प्रम णूपत्र आणिणू आपल्य से. प्रम णूपत्र,च प्रत्यक[4] एक प्रम णिणूत नेक्कली आणिणू दा&ने जेब बदा र व्यक्तRच त.ने ब बतच प्रम णूपत्र से दार कर त. ६. उपर&क्त अटींU र ली नेमणूक म न्य असेल्य से आपणू शक्य धिततक्य ली कर वि द्या प ठ से त रुजे व्ह. विकम ने वि द्या प ठ से त रुजे ह&ण्य च आपली इच्छा असेल्य से तसे त बडूत&ब कळो ने रुजे ह&णू र असेल्य च त र खा कळो.”

5. The translated meaning of the above reproduced clauses is that: a] the Petitioner has been appointed under the Pune Universities Act, 1974. She would be covered by Rules, Regulations, Ordinances and Statutes of 1963, along with all amendments and changes, that may occur from time to time. If there are any changes in the service conditions made by the State Government, she would be bound by such amendments. b] She will have to be examined by the Medical Health Centre of the University and after she is found to be medically fit, she would be allowed to join duties. c] While joining the service of the University, her educational qualification record, birth date, experience certificate, social status certificate, will have to be tendered in original form and the Officer of the Administrative Department of the University would receive the said documents. d] She should also submit the salary certificate of her earlier employment, the pay scale and documents pertaining thereto, including the relieving letter from the earlier employment. If the Petitioner agrees to such conditions, she would be inducted in the service of the University.

6. When the Petitioner was due for superannuation on 31.10.2003, the Deputy Registrar, Administration informed the Public Relations Officer (जेनेसे,पक. अधि क र ) of the Pune University that the Petitioner would be superannuating on 31.10.2003. Her date of appointment is 29.4.1985. Her deployment was in the Educational Multi Media Research Centre (EMMRC).

7. In the last 17 years, neither the Pune University, nor the UGC nor the State Government have entered an affidavit in reply. Notice was issued in this Petition on 22.9.2009. On 26.11.2009, this Court admitted the Petition and made Rule returnable early.

8. The learned Advocate for the University has vehemently opposed this Petition on the ground that the Educational Multi Media Research Centre (fully funded by the UGC), University of Pune Campus, Pune, through its Director, had informed the Vice-Chancellor vide communication dated 8.11.2010, that the draft of the Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Management of EMMRC, Pune be approved. The draft Minutes of the EMMRC, Pune held on 22.10.2010, make a mention to those candidates who were deployed under the EMMRC Scheme funded by the UGC in Clause 7 which reads as under:

9. He, therefore, submits that the Petitioner was never engaged by the Pune University and she was appointed in the EMMRC. He tenders a photostat chart of the pensioners’ list containing 26 names who were engaged by the EMMRC and who have been granted pension by the UGC. His submission is based on the instructions received from the University officials. Copy of the said chart is taken on record and marked as ‘X-1’ for identification.

10. The learned Advocate for the University then relies upon a short order passed by this Court on 10.11.2009, in Writ Petition No. 449 of 2009 (Mr. Shrikant Y. Sohoni v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.). The said order reads as under: “1] It is clear from the reply filed on behalf of the University of Pune, especially paragraph 5 thereof and the confirmation letter dated 5th January 1993, which position has not been disputed by the petitioner that the petitioner is not entitled to pension. There is no substance in the petition. Petition is disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited.”

11. We find that the case of the Petitioner rests on the appointment order issued to her. She had applied to the post of Research Officer with the University, on 24.12.1984. Her application was considered and she was invited for the interview on 8.2.1985, which was conducted by the University. She was granted a pay scale by the University which we have adverted to in the earlier part of this Judgment. She was granted all allowances admissible to the employees of the University, including the vehicle allowance. She was appointed on the post of Research Officer. Even when she retired, she was not informed that she was appointed by the EMMRC. Until her superannuation and until 5 years thereafter, the Pune University never took a stand that the Petitioner is not their employee.

12. The learned Advocate for the University draws our attention to paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the Petition wherein the Petitioner has pleaded that she was issued with an appointment letter by the University of Pune and her services were governed by the provisions under the Universities Act, the Rules and the Notifications. She has pleaded that she was a Research Officer and was deployed with EMMRC by the University. She refers to her retirement notice letter dated 10.10.2003, which is issued by the Deputy Registrar, Administration, which also contains the mention of another employee who was a Professor, and retiring from the University on the same day 31.10.2003.

13. The learned Advocate for the University, has made a valiant attempt to suggest that though the appointment order and the retirement letter may indicate that the Petitioner is an employee of Pune University, she was selected by the University and subsequently deployed with the EMMRC. We do not find that the University has issued any such letter by which it can be deduced that the very selection of the Petitioner was not in the service of the University, was meant for being appointed with the EMMRC and that the University never had Employer-Employee relationship with her. There is no document to indicate that the Petitioner was communicated that she was never an employee of Pune University and would selected and appointed by the EMMRC established by the UGC. Infact, the record reveals that the Petitioner was selected and appointed by the University.

14. When the Petitioner had issued a legal notice to the University seeking pension, the University replied through its Registrar vide communication dated 12.6.2008, stating that the Petitioner was appointed as a Research Officer under a project known as Educational Multi Media Research Centre (EMMRC), which was fully funded by the University. The payment of salary was made though the said funds. She would not be entitled for pension, since she cannot be treated at par with the employees of the Printing Press of the University.