K.S. Varma, J.
1. On 4-9-1954 the petitioner was appointed as Ticket Collector in North Eastern Railway and was confirmed on that post on 6-1-1958. In 1966 he was promoted as Senior Ticket Collector and was confirmed on that post on 9-9-1974. The petitioner resigned his post with effect from 21-12-1974 after having completed 20 years of service in the North Eastern Railway. On an application moved by the petitioner he was appointed to the post of a Lecturer in Law in K. K. Degree College, (J. N. College) Lucknow affiliated to the Lucknow University. This application was moved while the petitioner was in service. The petitioner, however, requested the Divisional Superintendent (P). North Eastern Railway, Lucknow to allow him to take up the job of Lecturer in law, undertaking that he would fulfil all the conditions laid down by the Railway Board for officers going on deputation. The Divisional Superintendent, Lucknow accepted the request of the petitioner to proceed on deputation as Lecturer in Law in Jai Narain Degree College for a period of two years. The condition imposed was that the petitioner shall deposit the Service Contributions with the Railway regularly and if he failed to do so, he would be liable to be recalled for breach of undertaking. He was also required to report for duty to the Railway Administration after the expiry of two years. On being relieved by the North Eastern Railway, the petitioner joined his duty as Lecturer in Law in Jai Narain Degree College, Lucknow. On 24-12-1974 the petitioner requested the Divisional Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow that his resignation be accepted in terms of Railway Board's letter No. F/(P) 67 PNI/18 dated 18-9-1971. In pursuance of the directions of the Railway Board the petitioner was directed to deposit P. F. contribution for the period 1-1-1973 to 31-12-1974 and he deposited a sum of Rs. 888/- with the Railway authorities. His resignation was accepted thereafter with effect from 24-12-1974.
2. The petitioner was confirmed as Lecturer in Law with effect from 9-9-1974. The petitioner deposited his pension certificate and opted for pensionary benefits permissible under the Rules and requested opposite party No. 2 to make payment of pensionary benefits. In order to be entitled to pensionary benefits the petitioner drew the attention of the Railway authorities to a Board's letter which has been filed as Annexure 15 to the writ petition. On the basis of the said document, the petitioner contended that a Railway servant who has been permitted to be absorbed to a service or post in or under a Corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government shall, if such absorption is declared by the Government to be in the public interest, be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits. The petitioner had already indicated his option for pensionary benefits. The Railway authorities intimated to the petitioner that his representation for claim of pensionary benefits was considered but the acceptance of another employment had not been treated as in public interest and on that account his claim for pensionary benefits was not sustainable. The other ground on which the claim was rejected was that the resignation, with a view to accept another employment, had not been treated as in public interest. It may be noted that the attention of the Railway authorities was drawn to Annexure 19 to the writ petition which pointed out to the Railway Authorities that the expression 'public interest' connotes such interests as affect the general public and it does not necessarily mean the whole of the public at large. Even when the petitioner had drawn the attention of the Railway authorities to Annexure 19, the petitioner's representation was rejected. Aggrieved by the order of rejection, the petitioner has come up to this Court and has challenged the rejection of his representation for pensionary benefits.
3. The petition was opposed by the opposite parties who filed a counter affidavit to the writ petition. The main stand taken taken by the opposite parties is that the resignation of the petitioner from Railway service with a view to take up another employment was not in public interest and that the Railway Board's letter. Annexure 15, was not applicable to the case as his resignation from Railway service and taking up employment with Jai Narain Degree College was not found by the Railway authorities to be in public interest.
4. The question whether the petitioner is or is not entitled to pensionary benefits in the manner claimed by him will depend upon the interpretation placed on Railway Board's letter dated 11-7-1973 which is Annexure 15 to the writ petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the post of Lecturer in Jai Narain Decree College, Lucknow which is affiliated to the Lucknow University is a post which is wholly or substantially controlled by the Government. Section 60-A, of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973-defines a 'college' as meaning any college affiliated to or recognized by any University according to the provisions of the Act or Statutes made thereunder and for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. It is not disputed that Jai Narain Degree College is a college affiliated to the Luc-know University and receives maintenance grant from the State Government. Section 60-E of the U. P. State Universities Act deals with liability in respect of salary of teachers employed in every college. The section is quoted below :--
'The State Government shall be liable for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of every college due in respect of any period after March 31, 1975.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to derogate from the liability of the college for any such dues to the teacher or employee.'
5. By reference to this section it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the State Government exercised control over Jai Narain College at any rate in regard to payment of salary. The learned counsel for the petitioner further reinforces his submission by placing reliance on Sections 57 and 58 of the U. P. State Universities Act. 1973. Section 57 of the U. P. State Universities Act, provides that if, the State Government receives information in respect of any affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government or a local authority) that the Management is not paying the salary of the teachers, it may call upon the Management to show cause why an order under Section 58 of the Act should not be made. If the State Government is not satisfied with the explanation of the College, the State Government is authorised to appoint an 'Authorised Controller' of the College for such period not exceeding two years. Section 58 of the Act also provides that whenever the Authorized Controller takes over the Management of the college, he shall, subject only to such restrictions as State Government may impose, have in relation to the Management of the college and its property, all such powers and authority as the Management would have if the college and its property were not taken over under the said section.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon State of Mysore v. A. Karibasappa (AIR 1974 SC 1863) to indicate as to how the word 'control' has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court at p. 1866 observed as follows :--
'The word 'control' suggests check restraint or influence. Control is intended to regulate and hold in check and restrain from action.'
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the word 'control' as interpreted by the Supreme Court is read in the light of the provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act referred to above, it is clear that the college is a 'body' controlled by the Government. On the scope of the word 'control', we have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and we are of the view that the provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act referred to above and the view of the Supreme Court in regard to the scope of the word 'control' make it abundantly clear that Jai Narain Degree College is a college under the control of the Government.
7. It is not the case of opposite parties that the permission accorded by the Railway authorities to join Jai Narain Degree College was not in public interest. It is also not the case of the opposite parties that Jai Narain Degree College is not a 'Corporation' within the meaning of Annexure 15, The only argument pressed by the opposite parties was that the State Government did not exercise any control over the administration of Jai Narain Degree College. We have already held that the State of Uttar Pradesh does exercise control over the functioning of Jai Narain Degree College specially in regard to payment of salary. Since the Jai Narain Degree College is under the 'control' of the State Government, the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits with effect from the date of his absorption in the Jai Narain Degree College.
8. No other point was pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure 23 dated 3-1-1978 and Annexure 21 dated 25-7-1979 are quashed and a direction is issued to the opposite parties to afford pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The costs of this petition shall be borne by the parties.