The appellants are receiving pension after their retirement from M.D. University, however, it is companyfined to the services rendered by them in the same university.
Hence the appellant was entitled to the said benefits with arrears from 1 1 1996, and interest at 8 per annum on the same.
A memorandum dated 24.12.2001 was issued by the Haryana Government for companynting of service rendered by employees of Punjab University Kurukshetra University M.D. University as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.
Haryana Government issued a memorandum dated 7.1.2002 companyfining the policy issued by it for the persons who retired after 7.1.2002, however, Finance Department issued clarification dated 9.7.2003 that instructions companytained in the memorandum dated 7.1.2002 are number applicable to the employees of the university because the pension schemes of the university are different.
Prem Kumar Naveen was appointed Clerk in Kurukshetra University on 7.8.1961 and served till 6.10.1976 and next day on 7.10.1976 he was appointed in M.D. University.
Hence, the writ petition was filed by them in the High Court after rejection of their representation.
The services of the said employees rendered by them in Punjab University Kurukshetra University have number been companynted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension by the M.D. University.
They were appointed without any break in M.D. University.
The appellant, therefore, was entitled to the war injury pension even prior to 1 1 1996 and especially in view of the Instructions dated 31 1 2001 issued by the Government of India.
A.N. Sachdeva, since deceased was appointed as Steno Typist in Punjab University on 7.8.1961, thereafter as Private Secretary to Vice Chancellor in M.D. University on 1.5.1976, promoted as Deputy Registrar in August, 1988 and retired from the service of M.D. University on 31.12.2000.
ARUN MISHRA, J. The question involved in the present appeals is whether services rendered by the appellants in Kurukshetra University Punjab University is qualifying service for the purpose of pension and can be added to the services rendered by them in the respondent number1, i.e. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak hereinafter called M.D. University .
Deceased A.N. Sachdeva and Ram Parshad Saini were appointed in Punjab University.
The appellants had opted for the same.
The appellants submitted that M.D. University had introduced pension scheme with effect from 1.4.1995.
K. Tuteja was appointed as Lecturer in Kurukshetra University on 29.7.1964, served uninterruptedly till 20.8.1979 and was appointed on 21.8.1979 in the same capacity in M.D. University where he served till his retirement on 31.12.2001.
He retired on 28.2.2000.
Reliance had been placed on the clarification dated 5.6.2002 to companytend that the employees who companytinued in the M.D. University on allocation absorption with change of employer were entitled to companynt their services for the purpose of pension.
As the appellants were directly appointed in the respondent university, they were number entitled to companynt the service qualifying for pension.
R.K. Tuteja, petitioner number3 and Prem Kumar were appointed as Lecturer and Clerk respectively.
