The main legal point established in the judgment is the rationality of the Government's decision to apply the new Defined Contributory Pension Scheme to employees appointed after 1st November 2005 in schools receiving hundred percent grant-in-aid, based on the responsibility of the state government to pay pension benefits only to employees of hundred percent aided schools.

(B.R. Gavai, J.)

1. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated 29.11.2010. The petitioners in all these petitions are either teachers or non-teaching staff employed by private school managements. Indisputably, when the petitioners were appointed in the schools in which they were appointed initially, were not admissible to hundred percent grant-in-aid at the time of their appointment and also on 1st November 2005. The Government of Maharashtra under various Government Resolutions has made applicable the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules to the full-time teachers and nonteaching staff in the non-Government/private aided schools. The last of such Pension Scheme was framed under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

2. The Union of India vide Notification issued by its Finance Department dated 22.12.2003 has made applicable Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (for short, the “DCP Scheme”) to the employees who are appointed on or after 1.1.2005. The Union of India has also appointed a Committee for the said purpose. The Government of Maharashtra vide Resolution dated 31st October 2005 had resolved to make similar DCP Scheme applicable to the employees appointed in the services of the State of Maharashtra on or after 1st November 2005. The question regarding applicability of the said Scheme to the teaching and non-teaching staff employed in the recognised non-Government (private) aided primary, secondary and higher secondary schools so also Junior College of education was pending consideration before the State Government. Vide Government Resolution dated 29th November 2010, the Government of Maharashtra through its School Education and Sports Department has resolved that teachers and non-teaching staff appointed in the recognized non-Government (private) aided primary, secondary and higher secondary schools as also junior college of education on or after 1st November 2005 shall be governed by the new DCP Scheme. There was also a doubt as to whether the Shikshan Sevaks who were appointed prior to 1st November 2005 in recognized and hundred percent aided non-Government schools would be governed by the old Scheme or the new Scheme. However, such doubt has been clarified by Government Resolution dated 19.2.2011, by which it has been clarified that such Shikshan Sevaks who were appointed prior to 1st November 2005 would be governed by 1982 Rules.

3. The question that arises for consideration in the present petition is, as to whether the employees who were appointed in private recognized schools prior to 1st November 2005 and whose services were approved by the Competent Authority but the Schools were not admissible to hundred percent grant-in-aid, would be governed by 1982 Rules or new DCP Scheme.

4. Mr Anand Parchure, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the cut-off date prescribing that only such of the employees who are working in private recognized schools which are receiving hundred percent grant-in-aid prior to 1st November 2005 for being eligible to the benefits of the 1982 Pension Rules, is totally arbitrary, unreasonable and not sustainable in law. Learned counsel further submits that though most of the petitioners were appointed prior to 1.11.2005 and although their services were also approved by the Competent Authority and though in most of the cases, they are entitled to some grants from the Government, they woulds be deprived of the benefits under the old Scheme which, according to the petitioners, was more beneficial. Learned counsel submits that the said Government policy is totally discriminatory. An hypothetical illustration is given by learned counsel for the petitioners that an employee though appointed in 1998 but if the School receives hundred percent grant-in-aid in 2008 would be governed by the DCP Scheme whereas an employee appointed much after him on 31st October 20