Pension is a statutory right under the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, and conditions set by the employer cannot waive this entitlement for qualifying service.

JUDGMENT :

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the AGP for the State.

3. The Petitioner is the Municipal Council, Beed, and has preferred this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27^th April, 2023 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No. 119 of 2014.

4. It is the contention of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 1 was appointed as ‘Daily Wage Worker’ with the Petitioner initially on 7^th September, 1985, and his services came to be terminated on 16^th July, 1985. Challenging the order of termination, Complaint (ULP) No. 93 of 1985 was filed before the learned Labour Court at Aurangabad, which was allowed on 24^th February 1987, with directions to provide all the benefits of reinstatement, including continuity of service and back wages. After the order of the learned Labour Court, Aurangabad, a seniority list was prepared wherein the Respondent No. 1 was shown at Sr. No. 116. However, the services of the Respondent No. 1 and similarly situated employees were not regularized and, therefore, again Respondent No. 1 and other employees preferred Complaint (ULP) No. 293 of 1990. The said Complaint was also allowed by order dated 15^th September, 1994 thereby directing the petitioner to pay the arrears claimed by the employees including the Respondent No. 1. It is submitted by the Petitioner that, the Respondent No. 1 was working as a Clerk on daily wages as per the Proposal/Letter dated 27^th September, 1994, and subsequently the appointment of the Petitioner came to be regularized by an order dated 01^st May, 2001, on certain terms and conditions. The Respondent No. 1 after attaining superannuation retired from the services on 3^rd April, 2009. Though the Respondent No. 1 retired from the services of the Petitioner on a permanent position, he was deprived of the pensionary benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and, therefore, the Respondent No. 1 approached the Industrial Court, Aurangabad and preferred Complaint (ULP) No. 119 of 2014. Upon hearing the parties, the said Complaint (ULP) came to be allowed with directions to extend the pensionary benefits to Respondent No. 1 after making fixation by considering the temporary service/daily wages services rendered by Respondent No. 1 from 1985 to 2001 as being qualifying service of 10 years as per Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner has invited my attention to the order dated 1^st May, 2001 by which the services of the Respondent No. 1 was regularized and he was made permanent employee of the Petitioner. The learned Advocate then refers to Clause 4 of the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order and submits that Clause 4 specifically provides that Respondent No. 1 shall not claim any benefits from past service, both financial or service-related. The learned advocate thus submits that the said condition was accepted by the Respondent No.1 at the time when his services were regularized by the Petitioner. He did not make any grievance in respect of the said terms during the subsistence of his service and, therefore, the Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad, below Complaint (ULP) No. 119 of 2014 is bad in law and requires to be