IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the eligibility criteria of the pension scheme for non-teaching staff under the Government Resolution dated 14.09.1988, and the determination of the petitioner's entitlement to be included in the scheme based on the date of entry into service and the applicability of the scheme to employees appointed before and after 01.04.1982.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Tejas P. Satta for the petitioner, learned AGP Ms. Nidhi Vyas for the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the respondents No. 2 and 3.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following prayers :

"8. .... this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to :

A. Admit and allow this petition.

B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the respondent authorities for considering the case of the petitioner and granting the pensioner benefits to the petitioner.

C. Issue a Writ or Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the respondent authorities for considering the year 1983 as the joining year of the petitioner in the respondent university and considering the petitioner eligible for receiving the pensioner benefits.

D. Issue a Writ or Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner within a stipulated time period and in accordance with law.

E. Grant such interim relief, as may be deemed to be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

F. Grant such further and other relief, as may be deemed to be just and proper."

3. It appears that the petitioner, who had joined the service of the respondent-University from the year 1978 on temporary basis and from the year 1983 on regular basis, raises a grievance as regards non-payment of pension and other retiral benefits, more particularly non-joining the petitioner in the pension scheme as promulgated by the State Government. It appears that the petitioner had joined the respondent- University as a temporary cleaner on 04.11.1978 and had continued as such. It appears that later on, the petitioner and other similarly situated Class-IV employees working on temporary basis were to be appointed on permanent basis and to facilitate the same, vide an order dated 31.12.1983, the petitioner and other such temporary employees were appointed on probationary basis for a period of one year from the date of the order. It appears that the petitioner had continued as such till the date of his regular superannuation i.e. 14.06.2014, and whereas upon the proposal being sent to the respondent No.4 for payment of pension and other benefits, it appears that the same had not been considered, more particularly on the ground that the petitioner had not given any option as per the pension scheme for non-teaching staff in Government affiliated colleges and universities, promulgated vide Government Resolution dated 14.09.1988. It appears that, on the other hand, the petitioner had been treated as being covered under the General Provident Fund Scheme and an amount of Rs.1,42,451/- had been paid to the petitioner on 01.07.2014. It appears that the respondent-University and the petitioner had continuously approached the respondent-State Authorities for considering the case of the petitioner as being covered under the pension scheme in question and whereas since no positive response was elicited, more particularly since it appears that the respondent-State had rejected the request of considering the petitioner as being covered under the pension scheme vide communication dated 03.01.2016, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Tejas Satta for the petitioner, who would contend that the entire issue has arisen on account of the petitioner not having provided any option as per the Government Resolution dated 14.09.1988, whereby the pension scheme was made applicable to non-teaching staff in Government affiliated Colleges and Universities. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Satta that while the appointment of the petitioner with the respondent-University was from the year 1978, yet, such appointment was only on temporary basis and whereas the petitioner was appointed on permanent basis vide an order dated 31.12.1983. Lea