Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition No.14417 of 1999 is filed by an Association of the Library employees in Saraswathi Mahal Library at Thanjavur. The said Library is managed by the Collector of Thanjavur as its Director and it is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The Society maintains the library and there are 33 regular workers and 6 temporary workers in the said library. With reference to the development grant, the Central Government is providing the same. With reference to the salary of the employees, the State Government is granting annual grant under the maintenance funds. The employees of the library were covered by the Contributory Provident Fund. However, subsequently, they were demanding a pension scheme to be extended on par with the staff of the library run by the State Government and also the Schools run by the School Education Department. 2. A Writ Petition was filed before this Court being W.P.No.11499 of 1995 by the very same petitioner Association as well as by several other employees. A batch of Writ Petitions came to be disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 2. 1997. This Court, after recording the submission on behalf of the petitioners held that it is for the Government of Tamil Nadu to decide whether pension scheme to the employees of the library can be introduced or not. Therefore, a direction was given to the respondents to consider the implementation of Employees Pension Scheme to the petitioner. 3. Pursuant to the direction, after several correspondence between the petitioner Union, the individual workers with the Government, an order came to be passed by the Director of School Education in G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 20.3.1998. In that, it was stated that though the employees have been demanding pension scheme, the Government considered that it will be a greater financial constraint on the State and the other Societies also may likely to claim such a demand, citing this as a precedent and therefore on the basis of compassion, a separate scheme for pension can be created for the staff of the library. But, when a demand was made for a special fund by the State Government, the Central Government rejected for making any additional grant. Therefore it was stated that with effect from 11. 1994, the employees will be paid a minimum pension of Rs.375/- with interest drawn from the deposit of the Provident Fund. But, when a demand was made for a special fund by the State Government, the Central Government rejected for making any additional grant. Therefore it was stated that with effect from 11. 1994, the employees will be paid a minimum pension of Rs.375/- with interest drawn from the deposit of the Provident Fund. Subsequently, the Government increased the amount of Rs.375/- into Rs.500/-from June 1997. On the basis of the direction issued, the Government stated that taking into account the interest of the staff, the Government created a special scheme by which the Government will pay a matching contribution to the Provident Fund subscribed by the staff and there would not be a block grant on this ground. A contribution made by the Government by a matching grant will be kept as a special contribution and from that pension will be given to the workmen and the scheme will be available to the existing 33 regular workers with effect from 4. 1995 and the minimum pension of Rs.635/- will be granted. If any person dies, the wife of the said staff will be given 50% of the said amount as a compensatory pension. Therefore, the Government informed the petitioners that the said pensionary scheme is proposed by the Government. Not satisfied with the scheme, the petitioner Union has filed the present Writ Petition No.14417 of 1999. 4. Apart from that, two other employees Mrs.Mangalam and Mr.T.R.Beema Rao filed two Writ Petitions being W.P.Nos.13368 and 14278 of 1999 respectively. In view of the interconnectivity of these three Writ Petitions, the matters were heard together. 5. Mr.K.Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when this Court directed the Government to consider and the Government was also informing them periodically that the matter was receiving active consideration by them, they have not settled for the G.O.Ms.No.65, School Education Department and it does not satisfy the demand of the workman. Further, the amount of Rs.635/-granted as pension is hardly enough to maintain the retired staff and therefore the Government should be directed to pay regular pension similar to that of the Government servants. 6. This argument overlooks the following facts: i) The Government is not directly responsible for the running of the Society. ii) The Government had requested the Central Government for additional funds, which was not forthcoming. 6. This argument overlooks the following facts: i) The Government is not directly responsible for the running of the Society. ii) The Government had requested the Central Government for additional funds, which was not forthcoming. iii) The Government also said that any pension to Saraswathi Mahal Library employees run by a Society will create chain reaction for similar Societies to make such a demand and therefore, they cannot introduce a pension scheme only for one set of employees. iv) For the pension benefit to be granted, the Governments financial position is not permitting. 7. In the light of the same and in the absence of the G.O., being under challenge, this Court is not inclined to concede the demand made by the petitioners. 8. The Supreme Court in S.C.Chandra vs. State of Jharkand reported in 2007 (8) SCC 279 , has held that grant of service condition by the State is either a legislative or an executive function and by judicial fiat, the Court cannot direct the Government to create an obligation involving finance. 9. Applying the concept of Montesquieus doctrine, the Supreme Court directed that the Courts should have self-imposed restriction on its judicial power in entertaining such Writ Petitions and must refrain from granting directions to the State to make Rules to provide for new pay scales or such other benefits. 10. In the light of the same, the Writ Petitions are misconceived and accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.