ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

( 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 advocates 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.

( 4 ) THE senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on Government Resolution of 21st july, 1983, and Government Resolution of 7th September, 2001, issued by respondent No. 1 and basically rule/clause 2 (b) of the 21st July, 1983, Resolution, which is reproduced as under:"2 (b) An employee means a full time professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator, tutor, Method Master, Registrar, Deputy registrar, Superintendent, Head Clerk, Senior clerk, Junior Clerk, Peon and other categories as are working in the non government Colleges, as well as Universities in the pattern approved by the State government and included in the salary payment scheme operated through the State government. "[emphasis added] those Resolutions have also been relied upon in support of the contention that the word "other categories" as referred in Clause 2 (b) above means and includes other part-time professors or lecturers who are working in the non Governmental Colleges. Their counsel further has relied on orders passed by this Court in various other writ Petition, including Writ Petition No. 2588/1989 (Order dated 16/1/2000), Writ Petition No. 1601/2001 (Order dated 8/3/2002), Writ Petition No. 149/2000 (Order dated 9/6/2003) and Writ Petition No. 416/2000 (Order dated 9/6/2003 ).

( 5 ) HE further relied on the order passed in Writ petition No. 90 of 1985 and order dated 20th July, 1988 passed in Writ Petition No. 1629 of 1980 and contended that this Court had already directed respondents to release the amount towards provident fund at the rate of 8. 33 p. a. of the basic salary which contribution the college would have made and which was discontinued erroneously and illegally. The petitioner has, therefore, claimed equal benefits and reliefs as per the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2588 of 1989 whereby, the Petition was