RAMKRISHNA SADASHIV JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a part-time professor of Law College (respondent No.5), has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seeks to challenge the non-grant of the benefits of provident fund for the period he was working as part-time Professor with respondent No.4. He alternatively prayed for grant of benefit of pension and gratuity on the same foundation.

(2.) The petitioner had joined as part-time professor of Business Law on 4th July, 1983 and was continued till his retirement on 6th June, 2000. At the time of the retirement, the petitioner was drawing basic salary of Rs.5,138/- and dearness allowance of Rs.1,938/- aggregating to Rs.7,076/-. Based on an order in Writ Petition No.2588 of 1989, the petitioner therein who was working as a professor with respondent No.4-College had claimed the benefit of provident fund for the period of his working as part-time professor. By the order dated 16th January, 2002, the said case was considered favourably by this Court and the relief was granted. The petitioner, therefore, through his Advocate s letter dated 10th October, 2003, requested the respondents to grant him provident fund, gratuity and monthly pension based on the same lines, but as there was no response, present Petition has been filed. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for the benefit of contributory provident fund for the entire period from 4th July, 1983, to 6th June, 2000, with interest. He alternatively prayed for the gratuity and pension benefits with arrears from the date of retirement.

(3.) On 14th March, 2006, after hearing the parties for sometime, the matter was adjourned for the State Government to consider the cases of permanent part-time teachers by formulating a Scheme to enable them to get some pensionary benefits considering the long years of service they had put in as part-time teachers. Respondent No.1, by letter dated 17th April, 2006, expressed their inability to extend any such pension benefits to such part-time employees. Respondent No.1, therefore, resisted the said prayers of the petitioner by its Affidavit dated 29th March, 2004, on all counts.