JUDGMENT :

ROHIT B. DEO, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, heard finally.

3. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 17.3.2022, issued by respondent 4-Assistant Commissioner of Social Welfare (Annexure -1), whereby amount of Rs. 5,20,140/- paid to the petitioner towards leave encashment, is directed to be recovered on the premise that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of leave encashment.

4. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Librarian at respondent 5 - institution on 1.10.1982, and he superannuated on 31.12.2016.

5. Respondent 5 is an aided institution which is affiliated to the Sant Gadge Baba Amravti University.

6. The service conditions of the non-teaching employees of respondent 5 are governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Codes (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1984”).

7. The Pension Scheme was made applicable to teaching and non-teaching employees of colleges which are receiving grant-in-aid from the Department of Higher and Technical Education and are affiliated to Non-agricultural Universities in the State of Maharashtra. At a later stage, the Pension Scheme was made applicable also to the teaching and non-teaching employees of colleges which receive grant-in-aid from the Department of Sports.

8. Respondent 5, which was receiving grant-in-aid from the Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, and similarly situated colleges, were not covered by the Pension Scheme. The teaching and non-teaching employees of Social Work Colleges approached the High Court seeking implementation of the Pension Scheme, in Writ Petition 5771/2011, Writ Petition 682/2012 and Writ Petition 3277/2012.

9. The writ petitions supra, were decided by common judgment dated 10.6.2013 and Rule was made absolute in terms of direction contained in paragraphs 37 and 40, which we extract below:

“37. In the result, it follows that the Government decision dated 27.6.2001 refusing to extend the pension-cum-gratuity scheme to Ayurvedic and Unani Colleges impugned in Writ Petition No. 5771 of 2011 and similar decision dated 12.7.2010 about Social Work Colleges impugned in other two writ petitions are, therefore, unsustainable. Submission that communication dated 12.7. 2010 is only reiteration of basic decision of the State dated 11.7.2001 not to extend said benefit to Social Work staff and has been questioned after huge delay, also does not hold any water. There is nothing on record to show that this cabinet decision was communicated to any of the concerned parties. These decisions dated 27.6.2001, 11.7.2001 and 12.7.2010 are quashed and set aside.

40. In this situation, we feel that pension and gratuity from State exchequer for the past needs to be denied to all and said benefits can be directed to be extended to the respective petitioners/staff members only from the date of filing of these three petitions before this High Court. Thus we hold that Staff of Petitioner Colleges and Hospital staff in Writ Petition No. 5571 of 2011 is entitled to pension and gratuity in terms of GR dated 21.7.1983 from 21.11.2011 i.e. the date of filing of Writ Petition No. 5771 of 2011. Similarly, the staff of Social Work Colleges is entitled to it from 27.1.2012 being the date on which first of writ-petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 682 of 2012 has been filed. This direction is applicable only to those who are not subject to new defined CPF scheme dated 31.10.2005. Those who are covered under later GR dated 31.10.2005 shall be extended its benefit in terms thereof also from the respective dates of filing already indicated above. Payments towards gratuity and of monthly pension as per these directions should be worked out as per law after requisite compliances by 31.12.2013 an