SURESH SRIKRISHNA NAIK Vs. KARAMVEER HIRE RURAL INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. WITH the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) THE petitioner retired from service on 30th April, 1994 after serving as Lecturer in Social Work in Karamveer Hire Rural Institute, Gargoti, Dist. Kolhapur (respondent No. 1) from 27-6-1961 to 20-6-1967, after which he had worked as Senior Lecturer in Social Work in Karve Institute of Social Work (respondent No. 2) from 1-7-1967 to 24-6-1981 and, finally, he was Professor-in-charge in Social Science Centre, Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune (respondent No. 3) from 25-6-1981 to 30-4-1994. According to the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 institutes are not only recognised by the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Maharashtra, but the said Institutes are also receiving grant-in-aid. The petitioners grievance is that though he had worked for 32 years in the said Institutes and is eligible for pension scheme, yet retirement benefits such as gratuity, pension, etc. are denied to him. The petitioner has thrown challenge to the discriminatory treatment being meted out to him and the teachers in the said institutes in relation to pensionary benefits while the said benefits are being granted to teachers fraternity, to various teaching and non-teaching staff of recognised aided non-Government Arts, Science, Commerce and Education Colleges and non-Agricultural Universities in the State. The petitioner has pointed out that such benefits have been granted to teachers in Education Colleges under the Department of Education and Employment vide Government Resolution dated 21-7-1983, but the said benefits are not applied to teaching and non-teaching staff of the Social Work Institutions/colleges which amounts to discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further pointed out that in the said Government Resolution dated 21-7-1983, detailed instructions relating to options to elect either to continue under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme or to come under the pension scheme are available. The petitioner further claims that the teaching staff of the Colleges under the Social Welfare Department perform the same duties which are being performed in the Colleges under the Education Department; the service conditions, manner of fixation of pay, recruitment, qualifications, career advancement, syllabus, teaching programme, work load, etc. , which are applicable to the teachers in Government and non-Government Colleges affiliated to the University are equally applicable to teachers in Social Work Institutions and Colleges under the Social Welfare Department. It is further pointed out by the petitioner that Institutions/colleges under the Social Welfare Department are affiliated to Shivaji University and Pune University to which Colleges under the Education Department are also affiliated and all norms of the University Grants Commission applicable to the University are equally applicable to the Institutions and Colleges under the Social Welfare Department. The petitioner had approached the Honble Lokayukta where it was pointed out by the Social Welfare Department that grant of pension to the teachers under the Social Welfare Department is a policy decision of the State and, as such, no further action was taken by the Honble Lokayukta. The immediate cause for filing this petition is that on 31-3-1993 the Director of Social Welfare sent a letter addressed to the Association of Social Work Educators that the Government has taken decision not to grant pension to teachers of Colleges of Social Work on the ground of financial situation. The petitioner contends that this decision of the State Government on the ground of financial constraints is not only arbitrary and irrational, but it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, he has received total Provident Fund of Rs. 64,000/- from three Institutions where he had served for 32 years and the said amount is not sufficient for his maintenance. Therefore, the petitioner seeks direction against the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to pay retirement benefits.

(3.) THE State of Maharashtra has filed affidavit-in-reply through Deputy Secretary to Government, Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. In this affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get retirement benefits such as pension, gratuity, etc. since the Government has taken a policy decision on 8-7-1998 considering the financial implications and position of the State exchequer so as no to grant such benefits to teaching/non-teaching staff of Social Work Colleges. It is further submitted that the payment of such benefits would result in huge financial burden which the State is unable to meet on account of limited financial resources of the State. It is further averred in the affidavit that the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules are not applicable to the case of the petitioner and that even in the case of employees of aided non-Government Institutes/colleges working under the Public Health Department, the Government had taken a policy decision that no pension and gratuity scheme shall be made applicable to them. The said policy was challenged before this Court and this Court had granted relief in favour of the petitioners therein, but in the Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government before the Apex Court, it has been held that whether the scheme could be extended or not is a question of an executive policy and the Court would not take the responsibility of directing the Government to extend the policy. Besides, reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in (Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. v. P. K. Mohanty), 1991 (2) S. C. C. 295.