Anil Anandrao Patil And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 564 Bom

JUDGMENT

P.V. Kakade, J.

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 presentpetitioners.

4. It may be noted at this juncture that, affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 is by a Junior Clerk wherein it is sought to be established that the Printing . Press Unit of Shivaji University is a self-supporting unit and State Government grant is not admissible for the said unit. However, it is admitted that, at one stage the University had decided to extend pensionary benefit scheme to the employees working in the printing press under the Management Council resolution dated May 3, 1997. Thereafter, further resolution was passed resolving to pay ad hoc pension on certain terms and conditions, however, the employees of the Printing Press did not accept ad hoc pension scheme. According to the respondent No. 2 University, they have no objection to extend the benefit of the pension scheme to the petitioners if the State Government - the respondent No. 1 is ready and willing to cover the employees of the Printing Press under Salary and Pension Scheme. In affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it is submitted that, even though Pune University Printing Press and Shivaji University Printing Press are both self-supporting units they are not similarly situated persons because Shivaji University has passed resolution regarding implementing the separate pension scheme for the employees of the Printing Press. However, as we have seen earlier, with reference to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, it was ad hoc pension scheme which was not acceptable to the petitioners and, therefore, it was abandoned.

5. Having considered all the relevant aspects in this regard, it is to be noted without further elaboration that, all the facets of the issue were examined by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3626 of 1998 and, therefore, the principles laid down therein are required to be squarely applied to the present case. It was held therein that denial of

pensionary benefits to the members of the petitioner union only on the ground that they were working in Pune University Printing Press was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and there was no merit in the submission made on behalf of the respondent No. 1 therein that the Punc University Printing Press was a self- supporting unit and, as such, non-teaching employees working therein were not entitled to the benefit of pension-cum-gratuity scheme which was made applicable to other non-teaching employees, would not be made available to the employees of the University Printing Press. The Division Bench has also held that, merely because Pune University Printing Press was registered as a factory under the provisions of the Factories Act and provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the non-teaching employees of the Printing Press cannot be discriminated by not extending the benefit of Scheme to them. It may also be noted at this stage that the decision of the Division Bench was accepted by the State Government finally and issued resolution dated January 23, 1998 extending the scheme to the employees of the Pune University Printing Press. It would not be out of place to note here

that this benefit was also extended to the University Printing Press of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University by virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench on April 16, 1999 in W.P.No. 5394 of 1998. Similar was the view taken by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1223 of 2000 of this Court in the case of petitioner workers in Mumbai University Printing Press.

6. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, we hold that the principles laid down in writ petition as aforesaid are required to be made applicable mutatis mutandis to the case of the present petitioners, especially the controversy is already concluded by the above said various decisions of the Division Bench.

7. In the result, the petition is allowed.

8. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (b) & (c).

9. The State Government is directed to implement this order within the period of eight weeks from the date of this order.

10. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.