Constituent Institution Employees Cannot Claim Central University Benefits: Allahabad High Court
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that in the absence of specific policy, staff of constituent institutions cannot claim the same benefits as those awarded to Central University Employees.“... only on ground that institution become constituent of Allahabad University, petitioners cannot be granted benefit of General Provident Fund Scheme since it has to be granted only on basis...
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that in the absence of specific policy, staff of constituent institutions cannot claim the same benefits as those awarded to Central University Employees.
“... only on ground that institution become constituent of Allahabad University, petitioners cannot be granted benefit of General Provident Fund Scheme since it has to be granted only on basis of relevant provisions which are not applicable in the present case in favour of petitioners,” held Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery.
Petitioners were employees of the G.B. Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad, an autonomous institution registered under the Indian Societies Registration Act. In 2005, when Allahabad University was conferred the status of a Central University, the G.B. Pant Institute was adopted as a constituent institution.
On this basis, the petitioners claimed benefits that were awarded to central university employees. This included replacing the General Provident Fund Scheme with the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. However, the demand was rejected by the University Grants Commission. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The Court held that an autonomous institution becoming constituent of a Central University would not by that very fact allow application of the General Provident Fund Scheme, especially in the absence of a specific provision to that effect.
Justice Shamshery noted that the institution in question remained autonomous and its financing was distinct from that of the University of Allahabad. He relied on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in Priyankar Upadhyaya v. Union of India and Ors. where a similar claim raised by retired employees of Banaras Hindu University was rejected.
Further, the Court relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Bhagwan & Ors. to hold that in such cases, courts must exercise caution in awarding benefits with financial implications.
“Whether to grant certain benefits to the employees or not should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the Court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences,” held the Court in Bhagwan.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Dr. S.K. Pant Professor and others Versus Union of India and others [WRIT - A No. - 16734 of 2012 ]