Rajasthan
Agricultural University Vs. Ram Krishna Vyas [1999] INSC 120 (3 April 1999)
Syed
Shah Mohammed Quadri S.N.Phukan S.N.Phukan,J
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dated 12.09.95 passed in Special
Appeal No. 572 of 1995.
By the
impugned judgment the Division Bench dismissed the special appeal filed by the
present appellant namely Rajasthan Agricultural University constituted by
Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner
Act, 1987. Initially by an Act Udaipur University was constituted which was renamed
as Mohanlal Sudhadia University. Later
Mohanlal Sukhadia University was bifurcated and present
appellant university was founded by an Act of Legislature.
The
respondent herein was an employee of the appellant university and retired from
service on superannuation on 9th December, 1992. He was granted provisional pension
which was subsequently reduced. Another grievance of the respondent was that
the gratuity was calculated only on the basic pay instead of calculating on the
pay last drawn including the dearness allowance and adhoc
dearness allowance in accordance with the provisions of relevant rules. The
respondent, therefore, prayed that an appropriate writ/direction be issued
directing the appellant - university to finalise the retiral benefits such as pension, gratuity and other retiral dues on the basis of actual last pay drawn,
dearness and ad hoc dearness allowances. In the counter filed before the High
Court by the present appellant - university the actual date of retirement was
disputed and according to the appellant, the respondent herein actually retired
on 30th November, 1992.
Regarding
provisional pension it was urged before the High Court that provisional pension
was granted on the basis of undertaking given by the respondent that excess
benefits, if any, would be refunded. It was also urged that provisional pension
was found to be more than what was due. Regarding rules of the university the
plea taken before the High Court was that rules stood amended as per rules of
the State Government and as the Government rules define the emoluments as basic
pay for the purpose of payment of gratuity, no payment of gratuity on dearness
allowance can be allowed.
Various
other pleas had been taken and it is not necessary to state at this stage and
we shall deal with those submissions at the appropriate stage, if necessary.
The
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3242 of 1993 by order dated
09.03.1995 inter alia was of the view that the rules
regarding the calculation of basic pay in respect of Government employee would
not be applicable in case of employee working under the university and
therefore, for the purpose of calculation of gratuity of the respondent who was
an employee of university, rules of the university shall have to be taken into
consideration. It was directed that in terms of the rules of the university
while working out gratuity of the respondent apart from the basic pay, amount
of dearness allowance and ad- hoc dearness allowance should be counted. Being
aggrieved appeal was filed before the Division Bench which was dismissed as
stated above.
We
have heard Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Addl. Solicitor General for the appellant and Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned counsel
for the respondent. We may state here that after the argument was over written submissions
were filed on behalf of both the parties.
To
appreciate the contentions raised before us, we may quote below relevant
portions of rules etc. The notes 1 and 2 of rule 11 of the University of Udaipur (Sukhadia University)
Payment Of Gratuity to Employees Rules, 1979 run as follows:-
"1. In the
case of an University employee retiring on or after
31.3.1986. the term emolument wherever it occurs under these rules shall mean
the emoluments which he was drawing immediately before retirement or on death
from the service and include the following for purpose of calculation:- a/ Pay as defined in Rule 7(24) of RSR b/ the amount of
dearness allowance, and c/ the amount of ad hoc dearness allowance as amended
from time to time.
2. For
the persons retiring prior to 31.03.1986, the word 'emoluments' wherever it
occurs means emoluments which an employee was receiving immediately before the
date of his release from University service on superannuation or retirement
after extension in service or termination or death and includes:- a/ Basic pay in the time scale; b/ Personal Pay which is
granted in lieu of loss of substantive pay; c/ Special pay attached to a post;
and d/ Dearness pay, if any." We extract Annexure-C to the writ petition:- "Minuts of the fourth
meeting of the Boards of Management of the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner held on May 20,
1980 at 11.30
A.M. at the
Krishi Vigan Kendra Peschwal Farm, Bikaner. xxx xxx xxx RAJAU/BOM-4/88-2/47 Considered adoption of Statutes of Sukhadia University, Udaipur for
RAJAU till new Statutes of the Sukhadia University, Udaipur be adopted till the Statutes for RAJAU are framed
and......" We extract Annexure-B to the writ petition:
"Sukhadia University: Udaipur No.F/Rules/PPS-87/87-II/430 dated
5.3.87.
ORDER
In pursuance of Board of Management Resolution No.15 dated 21.2.87 the Vice
Chancellor is pleased to revise the existing Pay Scales of University employees
in accordance with Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised
Pay Scale) Rules,1987 published in Rajasthan Raj-Patra,
Spl. Bulletin, Part-IV Sub-div. I dated 2.2.87. These
revised pay scales would be applicable to the employees from 1.9.86. The
revised pay scales would not applicable to the employees getting U.G.C. pay
scales......" We extract Annexure-A to the writ petition:
"Finance
9Gr.2) Department Notification: No.F1(68) FD(Gr.2)/86 Jaipur dt.2.2.87 Sub: Rajasthan Service Rules:
(Amendment)
Rules,1987.
They
shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1.9.86.
In the said rules- 7(24). Pay - means the amount drawn
monthly by a Government servant as –
(i)
the
pay other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal
qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively
or in an officiating capacity, or to which he is entitled by reason of his
position in a cadre, and
(ii)
special
pay and personal pay, and
(iii)
any other emoluments which may be specially classed as pay by the
Governor." We extract Annexure-G to the writ petition:
"Rajasthan Agriculture University: Bikaner. No.FII (3)/RAJAU/C/88/31/39-78
dt.16.06.88 Office Order Sub: Payment of Gratuity to employees rules, 1970. In
pursuance of the Finance Committee resolution No. 4 dated 20.5.88 and duly
approved by the Board of Management on 20.5.88 , the Vice Chancellor is pleased
to order that the Government of Rajasthan Finance (Gr.2) Department
Notification No.F. 1 (29) FD (Gr.2) 87-I dated
20.10.87 regarding raising the maximum limit of death-cum-retirement it
Gratuity from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs.75,000/-
may be made applicable to University employees from 1.9.1986 as per Govt. order
referred above." There is no dispute at the bar regarding position of the
rules and the resolution etc. extracted above. The short question to be decided
in the present appeal is whether while calculating the total emoluments of the
respondent for the purpose of gratuity in addition to pay as defined in Rule
7(24) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness
allowance which the respondent was drawing at the time of the retirement, have
to be added or not? The University being a body corporate having perpetual
succession has got a separate legal entity and as such rules framed by the
government shall not be applicable unless specifically adopted by the
University in accordance with the provisions of the Act by which the University
was constituted. From the resolution of the meeting of the Board of Management
of the appellant-university dated 20th May, 1980 we find that the
appellant-university adopted the statutes of the Sukhadia
University therefore, the University of Udaipur(Sukhadia University) Payment of Gratuity to Employees
Rules, 1979 are applicable to employees of the appellant-university. As
respondent retired from service after 31.3.1986, note (1) to the rule 11 is
applicable. Therefore, while calculating the emoluments for the purpose of
payment of gratuity the three clauses namely: (a), (b) and
(c) of the said note (1) have to be applied. Thus, the total emoluments
for the purpose of gratuity of the respondent would include
(1) pay as defined
in rule 7(24) of the Rajasthan Services Rules,
(2) amount of dearness allowance
and
(3) amount of ad hoc dearness allowance as amended from time to time.
According to Mr. Ahmed, learned Addl. Solicitor General for the
appellant-university, as the Board of Management of the appellant-university by
Resolution No. 31 dated 12.5.1988 had adopted increase in the payment of
gratuity to the employees and the respondent is not entitled to get the benefit
of dearness allowance and adhoc dearness allowance
while calculating total emoluments for the purpose of granting gratuity. This
resolution was formally notified by the order dated 16.6.88 which was extracted
above. On basis of the above order dated 16.6.88 we have no hesitation to hold
that only maximum limit of the amount of gratuity was raised from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- w.e.f 01.09.1986.
Though
along with the order of the appellant- university dated 16.6.88 a copy of the
Rajasthan Services (second amendment) Rules, 1987 was also extracted, by no
stress of imagination it can be said that by the above order, the University of
Udaipur(Sukhadia University) Payment of Gratuity to Employees
Rules, 1979, as adopted by the appellant-university, were also amended in
respect of other provisions. By that order only limit of gratuity was
increased. Mr. Ahmed has further contended that as the pay-scales of the
appellant-university were revised in terms of Rajasthan Services (revised
pay-scales) Rules, 1987 by an order dated 05.03.1987 as extracted above, Rajasthan Civil Services Rules shall apply to all
employees of the appellant-university. Reading of the above order dated
05.03.87 makes it clear that the Board of Management by Resolution dated
21.02.1987 only revised the pay-scales of the university employees and did not
adopt the Rajasthan Civil Services(revised pay-scales)
Rules, 1987 in toto. As stated above after the
conclusions of oral arguments, written submissions on behalf of both the
parties were filed. Along with written submissions explanatory note and
resolution of the Board of Management dated 4.12.87 have
been annexed. By this resolution of the Board of Management it was resolved by
the Board that the gratuity rules of Rajasthan State Government Services
(second amendment) Rules, 1987 with effect from 1.1.86 and modified from time
to time will be followed by the university till separate service rules are
framed. We quote below a paragraph from the explanatory note submitted to the
Board:
"The
Rajasthan Agricultural University has also adopted the Revised Pay Scales, 1987
effective from 1.9.86 for its employees and also adopted the revised gratuity
Rules in which the amendment has been raised from Rs.
50,000/- to 75,000/- vide order dated 16.6.88, and the payment of gratuity is
also being made accordingly to the amended rules. But one retired employees Sh. R.K. Vyas, Lab Assistant has challenged these rules in High Court.
The Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 9.3.95
held that RAU has not adopted GOR Gratuity Rules in its entity in replacement
of M.L.S. University, Udaipur gratuity rules- 70.
In
view of this, calculation for the purpose of gratuity shall be governed by
notes contained in Rule 11 of M.L.S. University Gratuity Rules. Thus gratuity
shall be calculated on the basis of Pay+D.A.+Adhoc D.A." In the written argument, it has
been stated that in view of the above resolution of the Board, the respondent
is not entitled to get the relief claimed. This point was neither urged before
us at the time of arguments and nor taken as a ground in the special leave
petition. Therefore, we are not inclined to consider the effect of resolution
as it was proposed to take away the vested right of respondent which was
affirmed by the High Court. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the High
Court rightly held that under rules of the University while calculating total
emoluments of the respondent for the purpose of gratuity not only the basic pay
but also the dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance have to be taken
into consideration.
The
present appeal has no merit and accordingly it is dismissed. Consdering the facts and circumstances of the case parties
are directed to bear their own costs.
Back