C R MAWLANKAR Vs. VICTORIA JUBILEE TECHNICAL INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner on the basis of his service from 17.1.1949 to 1.4.1986 alongwith other consequential benefits as provided under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

(2.) The Petitioner was appointed as Taxi Meter Testing Assistant on 23.12.1948 in the respondent no.1 Institute. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 2.4.1985. He was granted extension for a period of one year and accordingly, he retired as a Foreman on 1.4.86. After his retirement, he made an application to the respondent no.1 Institute claiming Provident Fund dues. In the said application, he also stated he was interested in opting pensionary benefits and he was willing to refund respondent no.1's contribution to the Provident Fund alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. The petitioner's application for grant of pensionary benefits was not allowed by the respondent no.1 Institute. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The State of Maharashtra has filed affidavit and has stated therein that by Government Resolution dated 20th February, 1985, the State of Maharashtra has extended the benefits of Pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme to the teaching and non-teaching employees in the recognised non-Government Aided Engineering, Technical and/or Technological College, Polytechnics and Pharmacy Institutes. The Government, however, took a stand that the said GR of 20th February, 1985 was not applicable to the petitioner since the Taxi Meter Testing Section was not receiving recurring grant from the Government. The respondent no.1 also filed an affidavit stating therein that GR of 1985 was not applicable to the petitioner since the department in which the petitioner was working was a self financing department and as such was not receiving grant from the Government and therefore, the said GR was not applicable to the petitioner. It was further contended that there is gross delay in filing the petition and as such, the petitioner was not entitled to the pensionary benefits as the petition was filed after a lapse of almost more than five years from the date of retirement of the petitioner.