IMPORTANT POINT
The right to pension is recognized as a property right under Article 300-A of the Constitution, and employees who have completed the qualifying service are entitled to pensionary benefits regardless of whether they retired on superannuation or took voluntary retirement.

JUDGMENT

Nitin Jamdar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Respondents waive service. Taken up for disposal.

2. The Petitioners are teaching and non-teaching staff of Respondent No. 4- Seth Govindji Raoji Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya, an Ayurvedic College. By this Petition filed on 11 January 2018, the Petitioners are seeking pensionary benefits and gratuity denied to those employees of Ayurvedic Colleges who have taken voluntary retirement.

3. Petitioner No. 1- Sharad Nagnath Bubne worked with Respondent No.4- College as a Head Clerk; Petitioner No.2-Shrikant Khandu Gawade as a Clerk; Petitioner No.3-Sunita Sudhakar Pansare as a Nurse; Petitioner No.4- Ravindra Namdev Sarvade as an Assistant Panchkarma; Petitioner No.5- Jayant Nagesh Kulkarni worked as an Associate Professor; Petitioner No.6- Narayan Goyal as a Peon; and Petitioner No. 7 -Manisha Ravindra Joshi as a Reader. The Petitioners have taken voluntary retirement from service of the Respondent College after rendering qualifying service, except Petitioner No. 7 who has not completed the qualifying service.

4. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department; Respondent No.2 is the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Education and Employment Department. Respondent No.3 is the Directorate of Ayush, and Respondent No.4 is Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya, the Management, employer of the Petitioners.

5. Though the issue in this petition pertains only to the nonextension of retiral benefits to those employees who have taken voluntary retirement from the Ayurvedic colleges, the struggle of the employees of the Ayurvedic colleges and their hospitals is a long one. It is necessary to trace this history to highlight the Respondent State's consistent refusal to extend retiral benefits to them by creating artificial and arbitrary classifications.

6. On 21 July 1983, a Government Resolution was issued by the State of Maharashtra. Under this Government Resolution, the pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits including family pension admissible to the government servants were made applicable to fulltime teaching and non-teaching staff in recognized aided nongovernment Arts, Science, Commerce, Education Colleges and Non-Agricultural Universities in the State for those who have retired on or after 1 October 1982. A Government Resolution was issued on 7 March 1990, clarifying that those employees who have opted for voluntary retirement will be eligible under the Government Resolution dated 21 July 1983 for pensionary benefits and gratuity. These Government Resolutions did not extend the pensionary benefits to teaching and non-teaching staff of Ayurvedic Colleges and Social Work Colleges.

7. Writ Petition No. 3508 of 1992 and Writ Petition No. 2645 of 1990 were filed by the employees of the Ayurvedic Colleges and Hospitals for extending the benefits of pension and gratuity schemes to teaching and non-teaching employees and the hospitals of Ayurvedic Colleges. The Division Bench of this Court, by the judgment dated 14 June 1996, held that the non-extension of benefits of pension and gratuity scheme to teaching and nonteaching employees of non-government aided Ayurvedic and Unani Colleges was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed extending the benefits to those employees, effective from 26 May 1981. This decision was challenged by the State of Maharashtra and its Civil Appeal Nos. 2878-2879 of 1997 were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 7 April 1997. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the declaration of the Division Bench but observed that a direction to extend the benefits of pension and gratuity scheme from a particular date could not have been given, and the State Government was given liberty to consider the extension of the said scheme in a phased manner.

8. A contempt Petition bearing No. 346 of 1996 against the State of Maharashtra was filed for non-compliance