ANIL ANANDRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the employees of the respondent No. 2-Shivaji University and are working as employees of the Shivaji university Printing Press. They have come to the Court seeking directions to the respondents to extend and not to exclude the benefit of a salary payment scheme as well as the benefit of the pension-cum- gratuity scheme to them vide various resolutions issued by the respondent No. 1-State government, the last being dated January 23,1998 whereby the employees working in the printing press of Pune University were given the benefit of the pension but those who were working in printing press of the Shivaji university were denied the same.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the entire record including the affidavits in reply. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 in the year 1981 introduced for the first time the salary payment scheme to non-teaching employees of the non-agricultural Universities and its affiliated colleges. Subsequently those employees who were covered under the 1981 Government resolution were given the benefit of the pension-cum-gratuity scheme by issuing another resolution in the year 1983. In both the said resolutions those employees working under the University Printing Press were treated as the employees of the self-supporting unit and, therefore, were excluded from the purview of the Government Resolution. Therefore, the employees of the Pune university Printing Press filed writ petition in this Court (W. P. No. 3626 of 1998) and challenged the Government decision to exclude the employees of the University printing Press. The writ petition was allowed wherein the action of the respondent No. 1 was held to be illegal and it was declared that, employees of the printing Press as self-supporting unit and to exclude them from the pension-cum-gratuity scheme, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Directions therefore were given to the State Government to implement the pension-cum-gratuity scheme to the non-teaching employees of the Pune University Printing Press. This judgment of our High Court was challenged by the respondent No. 1 in the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition which came to be dismissed. The respondent No. 1 still did not implement the pension scheme and, therefore, contempt petition was filed by the employees of the Pune University Printing press, in which respondent No. 1 appeared and produced the copy of the Government resolution dated January 23, 1998 which extended the benefit of pension-cum-gratuity scheme to the employees of the pune University Printing Press. Therefore, it is submitted that the right extended to the employees of the Printing Press of the Pune university should also be made applicable, on the same principles, to the present petitioners who are working in the Printing press of Shivaji University. As the respondents have not responded to repeated pleas made by the petitioners in that regard this petition is filed.

(3.) THEREFORE, it is obvious that, what is involved in this petition is, whether the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution when they have made the distinction between two employees, one who are working in the Printing Press and another who are not working in the Printing Press but are getting the benefit of pension. The question is also involved regarding the action of the respondent No. 1 which is said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because the government Resolutions have extended the benefit of pension- cum-gratuity scheme only to the employees of the Pune University printing Press and the benefit or the same principles is not given to the present petitioners.