Ram Nagina Singh v. Rajendra Agricultural Universi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15680 of 2008 ====================================================== Ram Nagina Singh Son of Late Sukhdev Singh resident of Village- Ghanari, P.S. Dildarnagar, District- Gazipur (U.P.) at present residing in the premises of Vetenary College, P.S. Gardanibagh, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa Samastipur through its Registrar.

2. Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa Samastipur.

3. Controller, Rajendra Agricultural University Pusa, Samastipur.

4. Director Works and Plants Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa Samastipur.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, Advocate.

For the University : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 06-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ application has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay him pension. As per the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the claim of the petitioner to pension has been negated on the ground that he has opted for the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and thus not entitled to monthly pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the form was not filled up by him being a IVth Grade employee and the concerned clerk had wrongly filled up the option. However, it is stated that lateron he again submitted his form showing option-A which is Monthly Pension Scheme. It is also the contention that similarly situated persons who

Patna High Court CWJC No.15680 of 2008 (8) dt.06-08-2015 2/2 had also initially applied for Contributory Provident Fund Scheme were lateron allowed to change and are getting the pension/family pension.

Learned counsel for the University at this stage submits that facts are different of each case and the petitioner in view of the materials available in the records of the University does not qualify for grant of pension. However, he is agreeable to the petitioner making a fresh representation before the Chancellor of the University who may consider the matter taking into account all aspects.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also agrees to such suggestion.

Accordingly, as agreed between the parties, the writ petition stand disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Chancellor of the University within three weeks from today. If the same is filed, the Court expects that a decision would be taken within four weeks and intimated to the petitioner by the office of the Chancellor.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U T