Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 228 (BOM)

Laxmi Anant Paranjpe v. State of Maharashtra

2011-02-24

A.A.SAYED, P.B.MAJMUDAR

body2011
JUDGMENT : P.B. Majmudar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader at great length. 2. The petitioner, who is a retired part-time lecturer in the third respondent-ILS Law College, has approached this Court with a prayer that the Resolution passed by the Government in depriving the part-time lecturers the benefit of pension and gratuity is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2A. The petitioner was appointed on 20th June, 1983, as a Lecturer on part-time basis in the third respondent Law College which is affiliated to the University of Poona. The petitioner, after putting about 27 years of service as a part-time lecturer, has raised a point that even part-time lecturers also should be given proportionate pensionary benefits. The question which is raised by the petitioner is that the Resolution of the Government of Maharashtra depriving the part-time lecturers from the benefit of pension and gratuity is arbitrary and is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The part-time lecturers were given the benefit of pension-cum-gratuity by way of Government Resolution which was initially passed on 21st July, 1983. Clause 2(b) of the said G.R. provides as under: “(b) An employee means a full-time Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator, Tutor, Method Master, Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Superintendent, Head Clerk, Sr.Clerk, Jt. Clerk, Peons and other categories as are working in the non-Government Colleges, as well as Universities in the pattern approved by the State Government and included in the salary payment scheme operated through the State Government.” 3. The petitioner, however, placed heavy reliance on a subsequent resolution dated 7th September, 2001, passed by the Education and Employment Department, Government of Maharashtra. Clause 4 (ii) of the said Resolution reads thus: “(ii) The minimum qualifications for appointment of part time teachers should be the same as that of regular teachers and selected by regularly constituted Selection Committees. The part-time teachers should be appointed only in exceptional circumstances when it is appropriate to the requirements of the institutions in terms of subjects to be taught or workload. They can be appointed on a contract appointment, if only for a short period or as permanent half time proportionate time employee against half proportionate salary of the scale and should include proportionate increments, dearness allowance and other permissible benefits. They can be appointed on a contract appointment, if only for a short period or as permanent half time proportionate time employee against half proportionate salary of the scale and should include proportionate increments, dearness allowance and other permissible benefits. Such permanent part time teachers will also be entitled to the scheme of career advancement from Lecturer to Senior Scale Lecturer, Selection Grade Lecturer, Reader and Professor. However, they will be entitled to half/proportionate amount of the basic of the scale and proportionate increments dearness allowance and any other permissible benefits.” Relying upon the said clause, it is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when permanent part-time teacher is required to take lecturers as that of fulltime lecturer and when the part-time lecturer is also entitled to the benefit of scheme of career advancement from lecturer to senior scale lecturer, selection grade lecturer, reader and professor, there is no reason why they should not be given proportionate pension on retirement. He submits that the exclusion of part time lecturers from the benefit of pension is not only illogical but does not achieve the purpose which sought to be achieved by the Pension Scheme. He submits that by the said Government Resolution dated 7th September, 2001 all the benefits available to full time employees were also extended to part time employees and hence the impugned order refusing the claim of the petitioner for pension is contrary to the policy of the first respondent. 4. In this connection, reference is required to be made to the Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of Bankerai Ambikarai Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (2006 (6) MLJ 873). While considering the point in issue as to whether the part-time lecturers are entitled to have pensionary benefits, the Full Bench, after considering the workload, etc. found that the part-time lecturers form a class by themselves. The relevant observation of the Full Bench is in paragraph 21 of the said judgment which reads as under. “21. The part-time lecturers form a class by themselves and the said classification cannot be said to be unconstitutional or bad in law. found that the part-time lecturers form a class by themselves. The relevant observation of the Full Bench is in paragraph 21 of the said judgment which reads as under. “21. The part-time lecturers form a class by themselves and the said classification cannot be said to be unconstitutional or bad in law. Nakara’s case has been explained by the Supreme Court in Krishna vs. Union of India and also in the case of A.I.R. B.R.O.A. vs. Union of India and it was held that Nakara’s case did not lay down that all retirees formed one class and no further classification was permissible. As a matter of fact, there is no challenge to the legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated 21st July, 1983. There is no direct or indirect ground set out in the entire writ petition in this regard.” 5. Mr. Godbole, however, submits that before the Full Bench, the constitutional validity of the Government Resolution was not under challenge and now the petitioner is challenging the same. It is submitted by him that when part-time lecturer is entitled to selection grade, career advancement benefit, etc., to deprive the pensionary benefits to such class of employees would be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution and the policy in his view is, therefore, arbitrary as, according to him, in view of the said Government Resolution of 2001, there is hardly any difference between part-time lecturer and full-time lecturer. 6. We have given serious thought to the said argument raised by Mr. Godbole. However, in our view, the challenge to the said G.R. on the ground of Article 16 is not sustainable. It is required to be noted that part-time lecturer is not prohibited from taking other assignment while continuing part-time employment with the College. The learned Assistant Government pleader submits that since the petitioner is an Advocate she was entitled to practice as such. When a part-time lecturer is even permitted to take other avocation, the part-time lecturer, in our view, is in different class altogether as compared to regular lecturers. Regular lecturer cannot have any other work assignment as long as he/she is serving as a full time lecturer. A regular lecturer in law is not entitled to practice in the Courts. A part-time lecturer is entitled to practice in the Courts. Regular lecturer cannot have any other work assignment as long as he/she is serving as a full time lecturer. A regular lecturer in law is not entitled to practice in the Courts. A part-time lecturer is entitled to practice in the Courts. In the present case the petitioner is enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra. If an Advocate is appointed as a full time lecturer in Law College, if he/she is enrolled as an Advocate on the roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra prior to the appointment, then he/she has to surrender the sanad given to him/her to the Bar Council. During the tenure of his/her employment with the Law College as a full time lecturer, he/she is not permitted to practice in the Court. 7. There is a reasonable classification in the matter of pension between regular lecturers and part-time lecturers. It is also required to be noted that right to get pension is available only from the Resolution or the statutory enactment framed by the authority. Simply because some additional benefits are given to part-time lecturers such as benefits of career advancement scheme, selection grade, etc. , that ipso facto cannot be a ground for coming to the conclusion that denying the pension to such part-time lecturers is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is true that as per Government Resolution, the qualification of lecturer also should be akin as compared to full time lecturer. But that ground itself will not make part-time lecturer a full time lecturer in any manner as educational qualifications stand on a different footing. Whether a person is a full time or part time, at least he should have minimum qualification for teaching the subject as required by the Act or Rules. 8. In ourview, since part time lecturer like the petitioner form a separate class as compared to regular lecturers, in view of what is stated above, we do not find any substance to the challenge to the Resolution passed by the Government denying the pensionary benefits to such part time lecturers like the petitioner. As stated earlier, there is a reasonable classification in the matter of giving pensionary benefits. By no stretch of imagination, therefore, it can ever be said that the Government Resolution suffers from vice of unconstitutionality or is in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. As stated earlier, there is a reasonable classification in the matter of giving pensionary benefits. By no stretch of imagination, therefore, it can ever be said that the Government Resolution suffers from vice of unconstitutionality or is in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Since we do not find any merit in this petition, the same is rejected.