The absence of statutory provisions for pensionary benefits prevents the extension of such benefits to retired employees of aided schools despite claims of equality with government employees.

ORDER :

BIBHU DATTA GURU, J.

1. Since all the petitions have been filed on the same issue, they are being considered and decided together by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPC No. 2789 of 2017 are being referred.

2. By these petitions, the petitioners who are retired Principal/ Lecturer/ UDT from the aided schools sought a direction towards the respondents to extend the benefit of pension at par with the teachers working in the government schools.

3. Case of the petitioners, as projected in the writ petitions, is that the petitioners are retired from the aided schools and their service conditions are governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Sikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (for short, “the Act of 1978”). Further contention of the petitioners is that their services are similar to the employees of the government schools and the government has also issued various circulars extending the benefits to the employees of the aided schools at par with the government schools. According to the Rule 33 of the Revised Rules for Grant In Aid To Non-Government Educational Institutions, 1979 (for short, “the Rules, 1979”), all the aided institutions employees entitles for salary similar to the employees of the State Government. Despite the said fact, the respondent authorities are not extending the pensionary benefits to the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel would submit that the refusal to grant pension to the Petitioners, while extending it to (a) employees of Government schools, and (b) employees of other 100% aided private colleges, constitutes an arbitrary and hostile discrimination. The State is bound by Article 14 to act fairly, reasonably and without arbitrariness. When the statutory scheme mandates equivalence, and when circulars affirm the same, the State cannot depart from uniform treatment on grounds that are neither rational nor legally justifiable. Denial of pension to senior citizens who have devoted decades to public education strikes at the Petitioners' right to live with dignity, thereby offending Article 21. Learned counsel would also submit that the Petitioners, having served for decades, are left without any post-retiral support despite fulfilment of statutory obligations. Such denial does violence to principles of equity, fairness and good governance. The refusal to extend pension to Petitioners, despite granting it to employees of 100% aided private colleges, constitutes an irrational and hostile discrimination. According to learned counsel, the petitioners and such employees form a homogeneous class governed by the same statutes. Learned counsel would next submit that the proposition that when the State complete financial responsibility for assumes an institution, its employees must be given benefits identical to Government employees. Learned counsel would lastly submit that denial of pension in the present case fails the "reasonable classification" test under Article 14.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the petitioners are the retired employees of the schools which are 100% grant in aid school and as the State is providing 100% grant in aid to the school of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners are claiming for pension but the same is not permissible as the said school is neither a government school no