High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 5384/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to provide benefit of pe nsion to them by treating their services at par with similar categories of emplo yees of the Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat. [2] Case of the petitioners is that Central Government in the Agricu lture Ministry had introduced a scheme called (cid:28)Studies on Inputs for Agricultura l Economic Policy and Development (cid:29) in the year 1971, which is still in force. On e of the constituent scheme was (cid:28)Comprehensive Scheme for Studying the Cost of C ultivation of Principal Crops in India (cid:29). The scheme is implemented through the A gricultural Universities and grants-in-aid are provided by the Central Governmen t to meet the salaries and other expenses. Employees engaged in the (cid:28)Comprehensi ve Scheme for Studying the Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India (cid:29) (Sch eme) are governed by the rules and regulations of the Universities. [3] Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat (University) was accorded administrative approval by the Central Government for implementation of the Sche me. The University was requested to make recruitment of suitable candidates agai nst various posts for implementation of the Scheme. [4] Director, Agro-Economic Research Centre for North East India was entrusted as in-charge of the Scheme and he was also designated as Drawing and
Decision
Disbursement Officer of the Scheme. Petitioners were recruited by respondent No. 1 against various p [5] osts, such as, Field Officer, Assistant Statistician, Field Supervisor, Computor , Field Man and establishment staff. Since then, petitioners have been dischargi ng their duties. In the meanwhile, a number of petitioners had retired form serv ice on attaining the age of superannuation. The particulars of the petitioners a re given in detail in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. [6] Petitioners raised the grievance before the University authoriti es that they should be treated at par with equivalent staff of the University an d benefits available to the University employees of similar grade including pens ion should be provided to them. In support of their claim, petitioners relied up on certain official communications. Economic and Statistical Adviser to the Gove rnment of India in the Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Economics & Stati stics informed the Vice-Chancellor of the University by letter dated 6.6.1996 th at some of the Universities do not consider the staff of the Scheme as their emp loyees. Consequently, the benefits available to the University employees are not extended to the employees appointed under the Scheme. It was brought to the not ice of the Vice-Chancellor that the employees of the Scheme are subject to the r ules and regulations of the University and, therefore, they are entitled to simi lar benefits as provided to the employees of the University. The Assistant Econo mic Adviser, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agricul ture and Cooperation) vide his letter dated 24.1.2006 had sought for information from the Director of the Scheme about the particulars of the employees of the S cheme including the projected expenditure for pension so that the same could be incorporated in the proposal for grant of pension to the employees of the Scheme to be submitted to the Central Government. Aggrieved, petitioners have preferred the present writ petition Highlighting the above grievance, petitioners submitted represen [7] tations before respondent No. 4 as well as respondent No. 1 but there was no res ponse. [8] seeking the relief as indicated above. [9] Contention of the petitioners is that employees under the Scheme are governed by the rules and regulations of the University and they work under the general control of the University. Their services are, therefore, to be tre ated at par with the employees of the University and same benefit as provided to the employees of the University, should be given to them. Employees appointed u nder the same Scheme in other Universities, such as, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore and Haryana Agricultural University are not provided pension . On a petition filed by the employees appointed under the Scheme in Kerala, the High Court of Kerala vide the judgment dated 24.3.1999 in O.P. No. 25227/1998 d irected the University of Kerala to send proposal for payment of pension of thos e petitioners to the Central Government within a period of 6 months. Appeal file d by the Union of India was dismissed. [10] Respondent No. 1 has filed affidavit. Stand taken is that the Sc heme is purely a Central Government Scheme under the Ministry of Agriculture. Th e said Scheme is not under the University but under the control of Agro-Economic Research Centre of North East India. The same is an independent organization wh ich is not under any administrative control of the University. The Research Cent re is not guided by the rules and regulations of the University. Though the Vice -Chancellor of the University is the Chairman of the Research Advisory Committee of the Research Centre, he has no administrative role to play. University is ne ither empowered nor authorized to grant any pensionary benefit to the employees of the Scheme. Though the Research Centre controlling the scheme is located with in the University campus, the University has no administrative or budgetary cont rol over the functioning of the Scheme. [11] Respondent No. 2 in its affidavit has stated that the Scheme is operated by the Director of Agro-Economic Research Centre for North East India. Though the University authority had agreed to implement the Scheme but it was no t merged fully as an integrated centre of the University. There was no approval of the Board of Management for direct control by the University administration. Petitioners had entered into service under Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) sys tem of retirement benefits. No financial commitment was made by the Government o f India to the implementing agencies to provide pension to the employees of the Scheme. Scheme is not under the direct administrative control of the University. Scheme is primarily meant to provide farm data to the Commission for Agricultur al Cost and Prices, which is a temporary Commission. If the Commission is closed , the Scheme has also to be closed. It has no parent body to handle pension fund . Regarding pension provided to the employees of the Scheme by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore and by the Haryana Agricultural University, it is stated that those employees of the Scheme are regular employees of the said Universities and they are subject to pension scheme like other employees of the Universities. In so far pensionary benefit to the employees of the Scheme under Kerala University is concerned, it is stated that the matter is under considerat ion by the Hon’ble Apex Court but it is also stated that the employees of the Sc heme under Kerala University are integrated employees of the said University. Se rvice status of the petitioners cannot be compared or equated with those employe es. [12] A common counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 3 a nd 4. It is stated that the Scheme is a Plan Scheme and approved on Plan to Plan basis keeping in view the need and necessity of the Scheme. The Scheme was entr usted to the University in the year 1971 for its implementation in the State of Assam. Role of the Central Government is limited to providing grants-in-aid and technical guidance. Though the posts under the Scheme are sanctioned by the Gove rnment of India, the appointments are made by the University as it has overall a dministrative control over the employees of the Scheme. There is no provision fo r pension and no such commitment has been made by the Government of India in thi s regard. The Scheme is not of permanent nature and its continuation is subject to periodical evaluation. Employees under the Scheme are entitled to CPF. Howeve r, it is stated that proposal for payment of pension to the employees under the Scheme is under consideration of the Government of India. Therefore, status-quo in the matter may be maintained. Regarding the judgment of Kerala High Court, it is stated that matter is now before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. [13] In their brief reply affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, petitioners have reiterated their contentions as a dvanced in the writ petition. It is however contended that authorities in the Ce ntral Government are sympathetic to the cause of the petitioners but because of non-submission of proposal by the University, petitioners have been deprived of their pensionary benefit. [14] In the course of hearing, petitioners had filed an additional af fidavit on 15.9.2010 to place on record a letter dated 20.7.2010 issued by the A dditional Statistical Advisor, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Dep artment of Agriculture and Cooperation, Directorate of Economics and Statistics and addressed to the respondent No. 2 which says that certain particulars of the employees were required to facilitate submission of proposal for payment of pen sion to the employees under the Scheme to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affa irs. [15] A further affidavit was filed by the petitioners on 17.8.2012 to bring on record a letter dated 9.7.2012 of the respondent No. 2 addressed to th e Additional Statistical Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Econom ic and Statistics requesting the said authority to reaffirm the Ministry’s commi tment for clearing the arrear liabilities in the event of implementation of the pension scheme for the employees under the Scheme. It is stated that the matter is being pursued to enable the University to take a decision towards full integr ation of the Scheme with the University. [16] Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioners a nd Mr. P. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Agricultural University. Also heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the natu [17] re of work of the employees appointed under the Scheme are similar to the work p erformed by the employees of the University. They render full time duty. Referri ng to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, he submits that as per their own showing, proposal for payment of pension to the petitioners is un der consideration of the Government of India. Therefore, necessary direction may be issued to expedite the matter so that petitioners can avail the benefit of p ension. Since similarly placed employees in Bangalore and Haryana have been gran ted pension, there is no reason why petitioners should be deprived of such benef it. He has also placed before the Court a copy of a decision by the Allahabad Hi gh Court in Writ Application No. 24354/2007 dated 24.7.2012 whereby a Single Ben ch of the said High Court directed the Central Government to pass appropriate or der for post retirement benefits like gratuity, pension, etc. to the petitioner who is similarly placed like the present petitioners. [18] Mr. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Agricultural Univer sity submits that petitioners are not employees of the University and, therefore , the University has no legal obligation to provide pension to them. Petitioners stand on different footing from the employees under the Scheme in Bangalore or Haryana or even in Kerala as those employees are either employees or integrated employees of the concerned Universities unlike the petitioners. [19] Mr. C. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel submits that s ince the decision of the Kerala High Court is being examined by the Hon’ble Supr eme Court, no final decision has been taken by the Central Government on the pra yer of the petitioners. [20] Submissions made have been considered. In the hearing on 19.7.2013, Mr. Baruah was granted time to obta [21] in up-to-date instruction regarding any subsequent decision taken by the Governm ent of India to provide pension to the employees appointed under the Scheme. Lea rned counsel for the parties were also asked to inform the Court about the decis ion of Hon’ble Apex Court in the appeal against the judgment of the Kerala High Court. [22] Though Mr. Baruah submitted on instruction that the Central Gove rnment has deferred consideration of the proposal till the outcome of the Court decision, none of the counsel could inform the Court as to the outcome or stage of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the appeal stated to have be en filed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court. [23] However, from a perusal of the affidavits and the documents plac ed on record, one gets the impression that the Central Government is not quite a verse to the idea of providing pension to the employees appointed under the Sche me. In his letter dated 18.6.2012, a copy of which has been placed before the Co urt by Mr. Baruah, the Additional Statistical Advisor, Government of India, Mini stry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Directorate of E conomics and Statistics had informed respondent No. 2, that staff of the Scheme are subject to the rules and regulations of the respective Universities and thus they are also entitled to the benefits available to similar category of staff o f the Universities. The posts for the Scheme are sanctioned by the Government of India but the employees are recruited by the University as the University has o verall control over the administrative matters of the employees under the Scheme . It was opined that the University may treat the staff of the Scheme as Univers ity employees and benefits may be extended to them as per University norms. [24] Mr. Katakey as well as Mr. Baruah, have laid much emphasis on th e fact that employees under the Scheme at Bangalore and Haryana were regular emp loyees of the concerned Universities and, therefore, they were rightly granted p ension since pension is provided to the employees of the said Universities. In s o far the Kerala decision is concerned, the Division Bench had noticed that the University of Kerala had evolved a pension scheme in respect of the employees co vered by the Scheme. The Division Bench had observed that whether there would be burden on the Union of India by introduction of the pension scheme was yet to b e seen and in the event of any such burden, the question was posed as to whether the Union of India would pursue the matter. In such circumstances, the writ app eal filed by the Union of India was held to be premature and was dismissed. In h is affidavit, respondent No. 2 has stated that employees of the Scheme in Kerala are integrated employees of Kerala University. Therefore, their case perhaps st ands on a different footing from the case of the petitioners. As noticed above, the Scheme is continuing since 1971. It has co [25] mpleted more than 4 decades. As such, it has acquired an element of permanency. The particulars given in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, which have not been d isputed, indicate the long period of service rendered by the petitioners, includ ing those who had retired on attaining superannuation. Those petitioners had put in their entire service life while serving under the Scheme. Therefore, their c laim for pension cannot be simply brushed aside. [26] In such circumstances, having broadly noticed the features of th e grievance raised in the present proceeding and the sympathetic view of the Cen tral Government authorities, Court is of the view that the Ministry of Agricultu re, Government of India should constitute a committee, which should include a re presentative of the University and such other members as the Agriculture Ministr y may decide, to examine the claim of the petitioners for payment of pension. Le t the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture notify const itution of such a committee within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of r eceipt of a copy of this order. To facilitate the deliberation before the commit tee, the University may submit a detailed proposal before the Ministry of Agricu lture, Government of India indicating therein the financial involvement in the e vent of grant of pension to the employees under the Scheme, including the petiti oners. [27] Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.