'MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This I.C.A. Proceeds -against judgment dated 26-9-2003 of a learned Single Judge, in Chamber, of thiS A Court whereby Writ Petition No.4363 of 2002 filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 4 was allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the impugned judgment fails to take note of the additional note added to rule 2/11 of the Civil Services Pension Rules vide amendment made by the Governor of Punjab by means of Notification dated 5-3-1980. According to the learned counsel, the pensionary liability is to be shared by the Provincial Government even in the matter of an enhancement effected therein by the appellant-University. Learned Addl. A.G., on the other hand, contends that the Provincial Government has fully complied with the provisions of the said additional note and admittedly have paid the entire pension amount payable to the private respondents for the period they served it. According to the learned Addl. A.G., the appellant-.
University itself effected the increase in the pension and since the appellant-University does not fall within the definition of a "Government", the Provincial Government is not liable to share the enhanced amount of pension with the appellant. He refers to the (sic) enhanced the pension.
3. We have examined the writ petition records. The writ petition was filed by the private respondents against the appellants as well as the Provincial Government. The grievance made out was that vide office order dated 30-9-1999, the Vice-Chancellor of the appellant-University the increase in pension w.e.f. 1-7-1999 as notified by the Provincial Government vide Notification dated 27-7-1999. However, this increase is not being paid to the writ petitioners on the ground that the Provincial Government is not sharing the said increase. The plea taken by the appellants, on the one hand and the Provincial Government, on the other hand, have already been noted above. The learned Single Judge observed that since the appellant-University is not a separate Government within the meaning of Rule 8 of the said Additional Pension Rules in Appendix 4 to the Punjab Financial Rules and as such the Provincial Government is not liable to share the increase with the University. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and the University was directed to make the payment of increase in pension of the writ petitioners.
4. We have considered the respective contentions of the appellant and the Provincial Government.
Now there is no dispute that the writ petitioners were employees of the Provincial Government and latter left service of the Provincial Government and sought absorption under the appellant- University with the concurrence of the Competent Authority. Now the said note added to the Civil Services Pension Rules by the Governor on 5-3-1990, and being relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants provides that the Provincial Government if requested will be rendered by such civil servant under the Provincial Government in accordance with the Government Rules.
5. Now there is no denial that upon the retirement of each of the writ petitioners the Provincial Government did pay in a lump sum all the pensionary dues of the said employees for the period they rendered service under it, to the appellant-University and it is being released by the University to the writ petitioners from time to time.
6. Now the impression being sought to be given by the appellant-University is that the pension payable to the said employees was enhanced by the Provincial Government. This is not so. The enhancement was made by the Provincial Government in respect of its civil pensioners vide Finance Department's letter dated 27-7-1999 issued under the authority of the Governor of Punjab.
So far as the employees of the appellant-University are concerned, it was the University that enhanced the pension vide order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 30-9-1999 (Annex: 'B' to the writ petition), by adopting the said notification. It is nobody's case that the Provincial Government in any manner called upon the appellant-University to effect the said increase. To our mind, this was a decision of the appellant-University. The learned counsel has not even contended that the appellant-University is a Government within the meaning of rule 8 of the Additional Pension Rules in Appendix 4 to the Punjab Financial Rules. The various Departments which have been stated to be deemed to be Governments within the meaning of the said Rules are stated therein and the appellant-University is not one of such Departments. This being so, there is no law or rule making it in the pension of the writ petitioners effected by the appellant-University itself. The additional note inserted in rule 2.11 vide Notification dated 5-3-1990 cannot be stretched so as to make it applicable to an increase effected by the appellant-University.
7. We, therefore, do not find any force in this I.C.A. And the same is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.