JUDGMENT
B.P. Singh, J.
1. The petitioner in the instant writ application is a retired teacher of the St. Xavier’s College, Ranchi, which is an institution owned and run by a minority and is one of the admitted colleges of the Ranchi University. The petitioner has prayed for payment of retirement benefits as per the Statutes of the Ranchi University. Though the prave in the write application is not very clear as to the exact relief prayed for by the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wanted that he should be given the benefit of the scheme known as the general Provident-Fund-cum-pension-Gratuity Scheme which is payble under the Statutes framed for the grant of retirement benefits to employees of the Bihar/Ranchi/Bhagalpur/Magadh/MIN./Mithila/K.S.D, Sanskrit Universities which has come into force from the 14th of November, 1980.
2. The Petitioner was appointed as lecturer in the St. Xavier’s College on 18.7.52 in the department Commerce. He was promoted as college professor/Reader on 1.1.76. The petitioner superannuated on 31.8.85. Much before that, in the year 1984 in view of the revised Statutes of the University relating to retirement benefits to employees of the Ranchi University and other Universities, the college asked for options from its teachers. In response to the above, the petitioner opted for the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme. Again on 23.7.85. The Principal of the College asked members of the staff whether they wished to make any change of option submitted in the year 1984 regarding retirement benefit scheme. Since the petitioner did not change his option, he did not reply to the notice aforesaid. The petitioner before his retirement; wrote letters to the Principal of the College for finalising his retirement benefits. In response to his letter, the Principal of the College informed him by letter dated 3.10.95 that the college was not in a position to implement the new Statute relating to the retirement benefits since the college did not have sufficient fund to pay pension to its staff. The petitioner, thereafter, represented to the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 3.3.1986 which was followed by a reminder on 26.8.86, The University by its letter dated 27.9.1986 called for comments of the Principal of the college on the petitioner’s representation. The petitioner did not receive any reply from the University and was, therefore, compelled to submit a representation to the Chancellor of the University on 29.4.87, but even then he was not favoured with any response. Under these circumstances, the petitioner moved the instant writ application.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his service conditions were covered by the Statutes framed by the University read with the provision of the relevant University Act. Under the Statutes, the respondents were bound to give to the petitioner the retirement benefits to which he was entitled. The petitioner had opted for the revised retirement scheme, know as the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme, The College was bound by the Statute of the University and was, therefore, bound to implement the scheme. The University had the statutory obligation to get the Statutes implemented if any admitted college did not implement the Statutes. It was submitted that the Statutes under which the retirement scheme opted for by the petitioner was formulated, was binding upon the college even if it was a minority institution. The ground of non-availability of fund was not a valid ground for non-implementation of the Statute. It was, therefore, submitted that non-payment of retirement benefits as per the Statutes of the University to a teacher in a minority affiliated institution was arbitrary and discriminatory.
4. Learned advocate General appearing on behalf of the University contended that if the petitioner was entitled to the retirement benefits claimed by him, under the University Act or the Statutes framed for the purpose, he must receive those benefits and such benefits cannot be denied merely on the ground of paucity of fund or even on the ground that the college was a minority institution. He however submitted that though the Statutes of the University provide for payment of gratuity and provident fund, they did not provide for payment of pension to the teachers of an admitted college. It was submitted by him that if the Statutes provide for the payment of ‘ certain benefits to the teachers of admitted college and any of the colleges did not implement the Statutes, the University could only disaffiliate such a college, but, it could not be compelled to give such benefits to the aggrieved teacher. He will have to seek his remedy by obtaining a decree from a court of competent civil jurisdiction. He however submitted that in the instant case, the Statutes formulating alternative schemes for the grant of retirement benefits were applicable only to the employees of the University and not to employees of the admitted college. The General Provident Fund-Cum-Pension-Cum-Gratuity Scheme was one of the Schemes under the Statutes and the petitioner being a teacher of an admitted college had no right to claim benefit under the aforesaid scheme.
5. Learned Counsel on behalf of the College submitted that the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme was not applicable to the teachers of the St. Xavier’s College. In the College, there was a scheme for payment of gratuity and provident fund. Those benefits had extended to the petitioner and he had received payments. The petitioner could not claim any further retirement benefits.
6. Having regard to the submissions urged on behalf of the parties, I shall now refer to the relevant provisions of the State of the Ranchi University, which are to be found in the Ranchi University Code. Statute 156 provides, Inter alia, that every college applying for affiliation shall satisfy the Senate that the qualification of the teaching staff and the conditions of their service are in accordance with the laws made by the University in that behalf. Statutes 186, 187, 193, 194 and 195 are to be found in Chapter XII under the heading Number, Grades, Qualifications, Pay-Scale and other Condiitions of Service of Teachers of Admitted Colleges. The Parties have relied upon Statutes 186, 187, 194 and 195 which are re-produced below:–
186. Teachers of admitted colleges shall be entitled to the same bench of provident fund as may be permissible to teachers in the service of the University, and the Statutes made in this behalf for the University staff shall apply with such consequential adaptations as may be necessary and approved by the Fund, including the opening and closing of accounts, and sanction investments, advances, payments and withdrawals.
187. Teachers of admitted colleges shall, for purposes of promotion, increment, seniority, leave, lien, travelling, halting and other allowances, be given the same benefit and be subject to the same rules as may be admissible for teachers in the service of the University; provided that where special grades, increments and salaries have been provided in these statutes, they shall apply for the purpose of calculation.
* * * * * * * * * * *
194. The provisions contained in this Chapter shall not apply to teachers working in colleges managed and maintained by the University and in colleges owned and maintained by the Government and not transferred to the maintenance and control of the University.
195. Teachers of admitted colleges shall be entitled to the same benefits of gratuity as may be permissible for teachers in the service of the University.
7. So far as Statutes 193 is concerned, the relevant part there of provides theat the Syndicate shall from time to time satisfy itself that the condition of service of teachers of admitted colleges are being properly enforced and followed and may from time to time, if necessary, make ordinances for better regulating the conditions of service. Statutes 186 clearly provides that teachers of admitted colleges shall be entitled to the same benefit of provident fund as may be permissible to teachers in the service of the University. Similarly, statute 187 provides that the teachers of admitted colleges shall for the purpose of promotion, increment, seniority etc. be given the same benefit and be subject to the same rules as may be admissible for teachers in the service of the University. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the Statutes in terms provides that so far as provident fund is concerned, and so far as matter relating to promotion, increment, seniority etc. are concerned, the teachers of the admitted colleges are entitled to the same benefits and are subject to the same rules which are applicable to the teachers in the service of the University.
Similarly statute 195 clearly provides that teachers of admitted colleges shall be entitled to the same benefit of gratuity as may be permissible for teachers in the service of the University. Thus, so far as grauity is concerned teachers of admitted colleges and those in the service of the University stand on the same footing. Statute 194, however, makes it clear that the provisions of Chapter XII shall not apply to teachers working in colleges managed and maintained by the University and in colleges owned and maintained by the Government and not transferred to the maintenance and control of the University. This deals with the colleges commonly known as constituent colleges. It will, thus, appear that there is nothing in Chapter XII of the statute which provides for the payment of pension to the teachers of the admitted colleges though it in terms provides for giving them same benefits in the matter of provident fund, gratuity, promotion, increment, seniority etc.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed great reliance on Statute 324 which provides as follows:–
324.(1) A teacher shall be entitled to the benefit of such pension, insurance, provident fund and gratuity as may be constituted for persons in the service of the University by Statutes made in that behalf. (2) For other condition of service, teachers shall be governed by Chapter XII of the Statutes in so far as the provisions made there in apply to them. He contended that under Statute 324, a teacher of admitted college is entitled to the benefit of such pension as may be constituted for persons in the service of the University by Statutes made in that behalf. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that Statute 324 did not apply to a teacher of an admitted college and only applied to teachers of the University. The submission of the respondents appears to be correct. The aforesaid Statute is found in Chapter XVIII of the Statutes under the heading 'classification, Qualification and scale of pay of teachers.' All the statutes in the Chapter relate to teachers of the University. It is in this context that Statute 324 is to be ground. It is, therefore, apparent that the teacher referred to in Statute 324 is a teacher of the University and not a teacher of an affiliated college. That Statute provides that such a teacher of the University shall be entitled to the benefit of such pension as may be constituted for persons in the service of the University by Statutes made in that behalf. It follows that a teacher of the University is entitled to the same benefits of pension as is available to persons in the service of the University. As to who are the persons who are considered to be in the service of the University, one has to refer to Chapter I and II of the Statutes. Under Chapter I, the Inspector of Colleges, the Controller of Examinations, the Librarian etc. who are in the service of the University, are declared to be officers of the University. Chapter II deals with officers and other servant of the University and the posts mentioned are treasures, Registrar, Dean of Faculty. Finance Officer, Inspector of Colleges, Controller of Examinations, Librarian, Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar. Pro-Vost etc. It is, therefore, apparent that statute 324 only aplies to a teacher of the University and provides that in relation to the matter enumerated therein, he is entitled to the same benefits as a person in the service of the University. There is nothing in this Statute 324 to support the contention of the petitioner that teachers of the admitted colleges are entitled to the payment of pension under the Statues. 9. I shall now consider the Statute, particularly, relied upon by the petitioner for claiming the benefit of general provident fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme. It appears that the aforesaid Statute was brough into force w.e.f. 14th of November, 1980 by a letter dated 18-11-1980. Heading of the Statute is as follows: STATUTES FOR THE GRANT OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS TO EMPLOYEES OF THE BIHAR, RANCHI, BHAGALPUR, MAGADH, L.N. MITHILA & K.S.D. SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY.
It is quite apparent from the heading of the Statute that it is applicable only to the employees of the various Universities and not to teachers of admitted colleges. Under the aforesaid Statute, three alternative schemes have been formulated. The first is the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme, the second is the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity scheme in which employer’s contribution to the provident fund shall be limited to 8% of the pay of the employee and the third is the scheme relating to Contributory Provident Fund only in which the employer’s contribution shall be 10% of the pay of the employee. Clause (3) of the aforesaid Statute provides that these rules shall apply to whole time employees belonging to the teaching or non-teaching staff of the University as also to such employees of the constituent colleges of the University who joined the service on or after 1-4-1972. The statutes further provided that it shall come into force w.e.f. 1-4-1972. Rule 3 further provides that those who have joined the University or the constituent college on or after 1-4-1972 are entitled to out for one of the alternative schemes set out in Appendix A and B, namely, the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme (appendix A) of Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme (appendix B). However, those who have joined service on or after 1-4-78 shall be entitled only the scheme set out in appendix A. Section 4 of the Statutes provides for exercise of option. It provides that all the employees to whom these rules apply and who joined service in the University/constituent colleges before the 1st April, 1978 and are still in service on the date of notification of these rules, .shall send their option in writing to the registrar within three months of the date of such communication.
10. It is, thus, apparent from the various provisions of the Statutes that the retirement schemes formulated therein are applicable only to whole-time employees belonging to the teaching or non-teaching staff of the University as also to such of the employees of the constituent colleges of the University who joined service on or after 1-4-1972. This excludes persons like the petitioner who joined service in 1952, even if the petitioner is equated with an University teacher, which he is not. Options have to be given by those employees to whom these rules apply. In terms, therefore, these statutes do not apply’ to teachers admitted colleges. Not only the heading of the Statute but also its content clearly provide for the application of these statutes only to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the University and to employees of the constituent colleges of the University who joined service on or after 1-4-1972. The petitioner having joined service in the college in the year 1952, and being a teacher in an admitted college, which is not a constituent college, cannot claim the benefit under these statutes.
I therefore, hold that under the general statutes, teachers of admitted colleges are not entitled to pensionery benefits since the statutes do not provide for any scheme for the payment of pension to them. Under the special statutes. Particularly, one which came into force w.e.f. 14th November, 1980, called the ‘Statute for the grant of Retirement Benefits to Employees of the Bihar/Ranchi/Bhagalpur/Magadh/L.N. Mithila/K.S.D. Sanskrit University the teachers of admitted colleges of the University, which are not constituent colleges, are also not entitled to pensionery benefits, since the statutes apply only to employees of the University and constituent colleges and that only to whose who joined service on or after 1-4-1972.
11. It was then submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in Section 4 of appendix A to the statutes, in paragraph 24 there was reference to the family pension scheme applicable to regular employees In pensionable service. It was submitted that under this provision the petitioner was entitled to pension. The submission, overlooks the fact that aforesaid provision for family pension is under appendix a to the Statute, and Rule 3 of the statute in terms provides that it shall apply only to the teaching or non-teaching staff of the University and the constituent colleges of the University who joined service on or after 1-4-1972. This is in fact, a part of the statute and is contained in appendix A to the statute. It can be of no help to the petitioner.
12. It was lastly submitted that there is no reason why the college should not grant pension to its teachers. It was submitted that whatever expenses are incurred by the college will be reimbursed by the University. Learned Counsel for the college submitted that no grants are made by the University or Government for payment of pension to the teachers of the college since there is no statute or scheme for payment of pension to teachers of the college. It was submitted that if the University of the Government sanctions such a scheme and makes an appropriate grant for implementing such a scheme, the college can have no objection. But in the State of things as they stand today, no pension is payable to teachers of the admitted colleges which are not constituent colleges directly run and controlled by the University.
13. I, therefore, do not find anything in the Statute of the University which entitles the teachers of admitted colleges to claim pensionery benefits such as the one claimed by the petitioner in the instant case. Since there is no such provision in the Statute, the petitioner cannot claim a right to receive pension. This writ application is rejected. But, there shall be no order as to costs.