JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard Mr. Jamdar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sawant, Special Counsel and Mr. Sonawane, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the records.

2. The petitioner's complaint relate to non-compliance of an order dated 18th January, 2000, by the respondents herein. It is a case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging discriminatory treatment being meted out to the petitioner who was a teacher in the institution recognised by the social welfare department in as much as that the pensionary benefits were refused to the petitioner though the same were granted to other members of the teaching fraternity in various departments.

3. Undisputed facts are that Writ Petition No. 5467 of 1999 filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 18th January, 2000 and it was ordered thus:---

"The decision of the State Government to deny benefits of pension-cum-gratuity scheme to teaching and non-teaching staff of the institutions/colleges under the social welfare department taken on 8th July, 1998 and communicated by the Director, Social Welfare Department vide letter dated 31st March, 1999, is set aside and the State Government is directed to consider extension of such benefits to the teaching and non-teaching staff working in the institutions/colleges under the social welfare department in a phased manner. Once this scheme is made applicable, the option as well as adjustment of contributory provident fund paid to them can be worked out and adjusted. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs."

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have failed and neglected to obey the said order of the Court till this date and they have not taken any steps whatsoever for complying the direction issued by this Court. Being so, it is a fit case, for proceeding against the respondents for contempt of Court for not implementing the said order.

5. On the other hand, it is a case of the respondents that the proposal for pensionary benefits to the teaching and non-teaching staff working in various colleges under the social welfare department was prepared on 29th March, 2001 and submitted to the concerned department, i.e. Higher and Technical Education Department and Finance Department for their approval on 29th March, 2001 and then submitted for approval of the cabinet on 11th July, 2001. After going through the records and the present financial position of the Government of Maharashtra and various policies of the Government of Maharashtra, whereby efforts are made to curtail expenses of various departments and not to increase the liability of the Government, a conscious decision has been taken by the Government that no pensionary benefits will be extended to the teaching and non-teaching staff working in the social work colleges/institutions under the social justice department. It is further stated that the total burden and financial liability on the Government in case such benefits are granted to such staff, would be Rs. 276 lacs per year for pension and Rs. 840 lacs for gratuity and commutation of pension. It has been further disclosed that the case was considered by the Government and the Government is unable to extend the pensionary benefits for such staff for the reasons given in the affidavit filed by the respondents which disclose the financial stringencies and constraints.

6. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, placing reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of (Kapildeo Prasad Sah and others v. State of Bihar and others)1, reported in 1999(7) Supreme Court Cases 569, (Salkia Businessmen's Association v. Howra Municipal Corporation)2, reported in 2001 SOL Case No. 444 and (Shri Baradakanta Mishra Ex-Commissioner of Endowments v. Shri Bhimsen Dixit)3, reported in 1973(1) Supreme Court Cases 446, submitted that inspite of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document