Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2434 (BOM)

Devendra Gopalrao Abetkar v. State of Maharashtra

2018-10-09

S.V.GANGAPURWALA, SUNIL K.KOTWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.V. Gangapurwala, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. All these writ petitions are based on similar set of facts and involve common question of law, as such to avoid rigmarole are decided by the common judgment. 3. The petitioners assail the Government Resolution dated 31st October, 2005 and the subsequent Government Resolutions/Circulars. Under the impugned Government Resolution and Circular primary teachers and employees of the Government aided private schools and Zilla Parishad appointed on or after 01.11.2005 are governed by the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (for short "D.C.P.S."). These teachers/employees appointed on or after 01.11.2005 are not entitled for the benefit of the old pension scheme in view of G. R. dated 31.10.2005 and resolutions/circulars issued thereof. 4. Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned advocate led the arguments on behalf of petitioners and other advocates adopted the arguments and also added their views. The submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners are summarized as under : A. The petitioners are the permanent employees and members of the District Service Class - III. They are permanent employees and are entitled for pensionary benefits provided under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 (for short "Pension Rules"), the Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984 and Maharashtra General Provident Fund Rules, 1998 (GPF). The petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefits of the old pension scheme by way of administrative orders. Such an action is unconstitutional, illegal and without authority of law. All primary teachers including the petitioners are recorded in District Service Class - III in accordance with law and provisions made under the Zilla Parishad Act and the Rules. B. Section 248 of the Maharashtra Zilla Pairshads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (for short "Act of 1961) deals with the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving with Zilla Parishad. The Government may make rules regulating the conditions of service in respect of pension by a general or special order. Section 241 of the Act of 1961 provides that, every person employed shall as from that day be appointed as a member of the District Technical Service (Class III), the District Service (Class III) or as the case may be of the District Service (Class IV) and shall become an officer or servant and hold office under the Zilla Parishad. Section 241 of the Act of 1961 provides that, every person employed shall as from that day be appointed as a member of the District Technical Service (Class III), the District Service (Class III) or as the case may be of the District Service (Class IV) and shall become an officer or servant and hold office under the Zilla Parishad. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act of 1961 provides that, the State Government may make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Sub Section (2) of Section 274 of the Act of 1961 further provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the State Government may make rules in the matter U/Sec. 248 of the Act of 1961 regulating payment to be made by the Zilla Parishad towards pension. Sub Section 3 of Section 274 of the Act of 1961 further provides that the rules to be made under this section shall be subject to the condition of previous publication. Sub Section 4 of Section 274 of the Act of 1961 mandates that all rules made under this section shall be laid before each House of the State Legislature as soon as may be after they are made, and shall be subject to such modifications as the Legislature may make during the session in which they are so laid or the session immediately following, and publish in the Official Gazette. The mandate of Sub Section 4 of Section 274 of the Act of 1961 is required to be followed as the act of rule making by the Government is subject to the test by the Legislature and unless legislature accepts the rules, the same cannot be a part of legislation. This procedure is not followed, the impugned Government Resolution was never laid before each House of the State Legislature and as such is unconstitutional and void. C. All rules framed pursuant to the powers U/Sec. 274 of the Act of 1961 have statutory force. They have source of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India that is, "act by legislature". However, in the present case the appropriate legislature has not framed any act or rules. The Government Resolution as such needs to be quashed and set aside as it is merely an executive order without legislative competence. They have source of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India that is, "act by legislature". However, in the present case the appropriate legislature has not framed any act or rules. The Government Resolution as such needs to be quashed and set aside as it is merely an executive order without legislative competence. The impugned Government Resolution is an executive instruction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India and will not have effect, unless an amendment is carried out under the Act. The State or its officers in exercise of its authority without any legislative support thereof cannot infringe the rights of citizen. The department or executive instructions cannot prevail over statutory rule and constitutional provisions. D. Though the impugned Government Resolution has been issued under the executive orders of the State, the Rules U/Sec. 274 of the Act of 1961 are not amended. The impugned G. R. is issued in exercise of powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The said G. R. has not been issued in exercise of powers under the Act of 1961. No corresponding rule making exercise has been made. On this ground also the same is bad in law. E. Article 309 of the Constitution of India deals with the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State. The appropriate Legislature has the power to regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. The services of the petitioners are in connection with the affairs of the State. It is for the Government to make rules regulating the service, until a provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of such act. As the recruitment rules of the petitioners were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, being statutory rules, the same cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice as the Acts governing the recruitment of the petitioners are not amended. The powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised, as the Legislature has already made the law and the field is occupied. The Government Resolution is merely a executive order. No Act or Rules are framed by the appropriate Legislature. The powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised, as the Legislature has already made the law and the field is occupied. The Government Resolution is merely a executive order. No Act or Rules are framed by the appropriate Legislature. The Executive order is without legislative competence. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1982) 1 SCC 39 , so also in a case of R. S. Ajara and Others Vs. State of Gujrat and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 641 , as well as in a case of K. Kuppusamy and another Vs. State of T. N. and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 469 and in a case of Dr. Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2001) 5 SCC 482 . F. The executive do not possess the power to make rules. The executive has power to implement the rules. The power to frame rules is always with the Legislature. The executive instructions cannot prevail over statutory rules. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Ranjodh Singh and Others, (2007) 2 SCC 491 . G. The impugned Government Resolution affects the rights of the petitioners to get the pension. The pension is paid from the consolidated funds of the State. Reference can be had to the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads (Payment of Contribution Towards Pension and Gratuity and Other Benefits) Rules, 1971. Any rule which is incidental to the money from the consolidated funds would be a money bill as provided under Article 199 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, unless it is processed through the procedure contemplated under Article 196, 198 and 207 of the Constitution of India, it cannot be said to be an Act by the Legislature. In the present case, such a procedure is not adhered too. In view of the same the impugned Government Resolution deserves to be struck down. H. Salary and pension is hard earned money of the petitioners and is property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The pension is not a bounty as has been held by the Apex Court in a case of Bharat Petroleum (Erstwhile Burmah Shell) Management Staff Pensioners Vs. H. Salary and pension is hard earned money of the petitioners and is property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The pension is not a bounty as has been held by the Apex Court in a case of Bharat Petroleum (Erstwhile Burmah Shell) Management Staff Pensioners Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corportion Ltd. and Others, (1988) 3 SCC 32 . The deprivation of the property must be by Act of Parliament or of the State Legislature, rule or statutory order having force of law and not by executive instructions. The petitioners rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar, etc. Vs. State of Gujrat and another, etc., (1995) AIR SC 142 and in a case of State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another, (2013) 6 Supreme 5 . I. By the impugned Government Resolution, the petitioners are deprived of their own salary to some extent and also their right to pension. The deduction would be made from the salary of the petitioners. The petitioners are deprived of their own salary to some extent and also to their right to pension as the pension would be paid from their own money deducted from their salary during service. The impugned Government Resolution is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The cut off date given is illegal. The petitioners rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 . J. The teachers who are appointed prior to and after the cut off date are treated differently. The cut off date is unreasonable. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in a case of Retired Employees of NonGovernment College Association, Nagpur Through President and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1987) MhLJ 326. So also the judgment dated March 31, 2014 of the Apex Court in a case of P. Ramakrishnam Raju Vs. Union of India and Others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521 of 2002 with other connected writ petitions. The State Government under the impugned Government Resolution has made compulsory to the petitioners to invest 40% amount which is non with drawable. The same tantamounts to violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have to invest their own money. The State Government under the impugned Government Resolution has made compulsory to the petitioners to invest 40% amount which is non with drawable. The same tantamounts to violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have to invest their own money. Such a restriction to the use of consolidated fund ought to have been processed as per Article 198 of the Constitution of India. The same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The salary of the employees is paid through the District Funds. However, unless and until the State Government does not deposit it, the District Fund will not be available. There is no district fund, special fund mentioned in the Constitution of India except the consolidated, contingency and public fund as stipulated under Article 266 and 267 of the Constitution of India. K. Article 38(2) of the Constitution of India requires State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people. It is the duty of the State in particular to strive to minimize the inequalities in income. Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India further requires the State to direct it's policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. The teachers appointed prior to the cut off date will be getting the pensionary benefits, whereas teachers appointed after the cut off date would not be getting the same salary as part of their salary would be deducted. Same is discriminatory. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Ajay Jadhav Vs. Government of Goa and Others, (2000) AIR SC 451. L. Section 4 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short "MEPS Act") provides for terms and conditions of service of employees of private schools. Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules (for short "MEPS Rules") provides for the right to pension. Rule 20 of the MEPS Rules deals with the right to the provident fund. As per the said rules, the employees are eligible for the pension at the rate and in accordance with the rules as are sanctioned by the Government to the employees of the private schools. The said right cannot be taken away by administrative instructions. Rule 20 of the MEPS Rules deals with the right to the provident fund. As per the said rules, the employees are eligible for the pension at the rate and in accordance with the rules as are sanctioned by the Government to the employees of the private schools. The said right cannot be taken away by administrative instructions. M. The impugned Government Resolution is unreasonable, arbitrary as even after retirement, 40% amount is required to be invested by the petitioners and the petitioners would not be entitled to get the said money. The said amount is the amount owned by the petitioners. Restrictions cannot be placed on the use of the said amount. N. Similar petition was filed before this Court at Nagpur Bench. The affidavit is filed by the respondent State, wherein it states that, the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Bill 2013 was passed by both the Houses of Parliament. Section 20 of this bill describes features of National Pension System. It speaks about lack of fund. Therefore, it is clear that the pension is paid not from the District Fund, but funds given by the State. 5. Mr. Yawalkar, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that, Section 130 of the Act of 1961 describes District Fund. Sec. 133 of the Act of 1961 gives the power to the Zilla Parishad to defray the general charges which includes the salary and allowances of the officers and servants in Class - III and Class - IV service working under the Zilla Parishad. So also the pension including contributions towards pension and other retiring benefits, gratuities or compassionate allowances payable to officers and servants. Reading Sections 130 and 133 of the Act of 1961, it is clear that the salary and the pension is to be paid by the Zilla Parishad from the District Funds placed at its disposal. Sec. 245 of the Act of 1961 provides for salary and allowances of the Government servants posted under the Zilla Parishad to be drawn from the consolidated funds of the State. Sec. 245 of the Act of 1961 provides for salary and allowances of the Government servants posted under the Zilla Parishad to be drawn from the consolidated funds of the State. The Act has made distinction regarding salaries and the allowances of the Government servants posted under the Zilla Parishad to be paid from the consolidated funds of the State, whereas the salaries and pension of Class III and Class IV services working under the Zilla Parishad is to be paid from the District Funds of the Zilla Parishad. Section 248 deals with the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving with the Zilla Parishad. The State under its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India can lay down the scheme with regard to the pensionary benefits. 6. Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services Rules, 1968 provides that the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short "Pension Rules") as amended from time to time and for time being in force in this State including all Government orders and instructions relating to the matters provided in the Rules shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to pension and matters connected therewith to the Parishad employees as it applies to the members of the State Government. At the same time the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services Recruitment Rules 1967 and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services Conduct Rules 1967 are silent about payment of pension. As the amendment has been carried out in the Pension Rules, the State was empowered to issue the impugned Government Resolution. The impugned government resolution and the amendment to the Pension Rules cannot come within the purview of money bill as the salary and the pension is payable from the District Fund and not the consolidated funds of the State. 7. The impugned Government Resolution is for the benefit of the petitioners. The contribution is also made by the State Government. The impugned Government Resolution is reasonable. It takes care of the future provisions of the petitioners and the members of the family. 8. The concept of equality is for equals. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled for equal treatment. The petitioners cannot claim parity with those appointed prior to 01.11.2005. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Ramesh Prasad Singh Vs. 8. The concept of equality is for equals. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled for equal treatment. The petitioners cannot claim parity with those appointed prior to 01.11.2005. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Ramesh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1978) AIR SC 327. 9. The learned Additional Government further submits that, the powers of the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to make rules to regulate service conditions of its employees are very wide and unfettered. The appointment orders also do not state that, they were entitled for the old pension scheme. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Union of India and Others Vs. Arun Kumar Roy, (1986) AIR SC 737. 10. The Government has powers to issue resolutions in that regard. The petitioners are estopped from claiming the benefits. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Bank of India Vs. O. P. Swarnakar and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 721 . The learned Addl. G. P. further submits that, it is a case of legislation by incorporation. In view of the amendment to the rules, the same would apply. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 3 SCC 1 . The learned Addl. G. P. further submits that, Division Bench of this Court at its Principal Seat at Bombay has upheld the validity of Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 in Writ Petition No. 2455 of 2012 by order dated October 11, 2013 and the issue is no longer resintegra. 11. The focal point in the dispute is legality of the Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 and the subsequent Government Resolutions and the circular issued thereafter. 12. It appears that, under notification issued by Finance Department, dated 22.12.2003 the Union of India made applicable DCPS scheme to the employees who are appointed on or after 01.11.2005. The Government of Maharashtra (Finance Department) under Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 resolved to make a similar DCPS scheme applicable to the employees appointed to the service in the State of Maharashtra on or after 01.11.2005. The Government of Maharashtra (Finance Department) under Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 resolved to make a similar DCPS scheme applicable to the employees appointed to the service in the State of Maharashtra on or after 01.11.2005. On similar lines the School Education and Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra has resolved that the teachers and the non teaching staff appointed in the recognized non Government private aided primary, secondary and higher secondary schools on or before 01.11.2005 shall be governed by the new DCPS scheme and issued the Government Resolution dated 29.11.2010. 13. The State has amended the Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984, the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and the Maharashtra General Provident Fund Rules, 1998 with effect from 31.10.2005. 14. The contention of the petitioners is that, the impugned action of the State would come within the purview and definition of Money Bill as contemplated under Article 199 of the Constitution of India may not stand to reason. Article 199 of the Constitution of India defines Money Bills. Article 199 of the Constitution of India reads thus : CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. ......... 2. ........ 199. Definition of "Money Bills" (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax; (b) the regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the State, or the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the State; (c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of the State, the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such Fund; (d) the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State; (e) the declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, or the increasing of the amount of any such expenditure; (f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of the State or the public account of the State or the custody or issue of such money; or (g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f). (2) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by reason only that it provides for the imposition of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment of fees for licences or fees for services rendered, or by reason that it provides for the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax by any local authority or body for local purposes. (3) If any question arises whether a Bill introduced in the Legislature of a State which has a Legislative Council is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of such State thereon shall be final. (4) There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is transmitted to the Legislative Council under article 198, and when it is presented to the Governor for assent under article 200, the certificate of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly signed by him that it is a Money Bill. 15. The petitioners are harping upon Article 199(1) (c) to (f) of the Constitution of India. According to petitioners, the salary and the pension is defrayed from the consolidated funds of the State. The impugned Government Resolution and amendment would tantamount to Money Bill, the procedure as is prescribed under Articles 196, 198 and 207 of the Constitution of India has to be complied. Whereas as per the respondents the pension is defrayed from the District Fund. To analyse this aspect, it will be appropriate to refer to the following provisions. 16. Sections, 130, 132 and 133 of the Act of 1961 read thus : THE MAHARASHTRA ZILLA PARISHADS AND PANCHAYAT SAMITIS ACT, 1961 1. ........ 2. ........ 130. District fund, its custody and investment (1) There shall be in each District a local fund which shall be called the district fund. (2) The following shall be paid into, and form part of, the district fund, That is to say (a) the balance in the local fund of a district or of a Janapad area formed under the relevant District Boards Act; (b) the net proceeds (after deducting the expenses of assessment and collection) of any residue of the taxes or cesses payable in the District under the relevant District Boards Act; (c) the proceeds (after deductions as may be prescribed) of the cesses in the District authorized by sections 144, 146, 151 or 152. (d) the balance of the amount of the tax on professions, trades, callings and employments after deducting such percentage thereof as is to be assigned to a Panchayat under clause (b) of section 163. [(d1) the sum representing the share of the Zilla Parishad in the net proceeds of the taxes, duties, tolls and fees levied by the State as distributed and allocated as determined by the State Government on the recommendations of the Finance Commission;] (e) all rents profits accruing from property (including ferries) vested in a Zilla Parishad ; (f) the proceeds of all tolls and leases of tolls on roads and bridges vested in the Zilla Parishad which are levied in the District under the Tolls on Roads and Bridges Act 1875 or any corresponding law in force in any part of the state; (g) all sums received by the Zilla Parishad [in the execution] of, or from taxation under this Act; (h) the interest on and the sale proceeds of any securities [and the dividends payable in respect of and the sale-proceeds of, shares, if any] held by the Zilla Parishad; (i) all sums contributed by private persons; (j) the receipt on account of charities and trusts placed under the management of a Zilla Parishad. (k) all grants, lands assignments and contributions made by the State Government; (l) all grants, loans and contributions meant for Panchayat Samities or any institutions or persons and to be paid through the Zilla Parishad by Government; (m) all other sums received [including any monies borrowed under the Act] by or on behalf of the Zilla Parisha under this Act or any other low for the time being in force; (n) all sums paid by the State Government to the Zilla Parisha to meet expenses for the performance of any agency function; (o) all sums realised by way of penalty otherwise then by way of a fine in a criminal case; and (p) all amounts received from persons for supplying or providing services, facilities, benefits or amenities: Provided that, when a public ferry, road or bridge vested in one or more than one Zilla Parishad is a partly in one District and partly in another, the Commissioner, if the Districts are in one division, and the State Government if they are in different divisions, may assign to the district fund of each Zilla Parishad such portion of the net proceeds of such ferry or of the toll, or of the lease of the tolls levied on such road or bridge, as he or it may think proper. [(2A) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (2) with effect from the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1974 all sums representing subscriptions paid by the employees of a Zilla Parishad to any provident fund established by it or contributions made by the Zilla Parishad on such subscriptions, if any, for the benefit of such employees shall be paid by the Chief Executive Officer into the public account of the State. The manner in which payment into the public account of the State of such sums may be made and the withdrawal of moneys from such public account and all other matters connected with or ancillary to matters aforesaid, shall be regulated by rules made by the State Government. The manner in which payment into the public account of the State of such sums may be made and the withdrawal of moneys from such public account and all other matters connected with or ancillary to matters aforesaid, shall be regulated by rules made by the State Government. (b) All accumulations in the provident fund held on individual accounts of all the subscribers immediately before such commencement (including any investment thereof,) shall likewise be paid into the public account of the State and operated upon before such date as the State Government may direct,] [(2B) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) all sums in respect of the pension contributions payable and credited to the Zilla Parishad Pension Fund for a period upto and inclusive of the 31st day of March 1974 and representing the balance therein, including investments, if any, thereof in securities or shares, shall be paid by the Chief Executive Officer into the Consolidated Funds of the State. The manner in which payment into the Consolidated Fund of the State of such sums and securities and shares, if any, may be made and all other matters connected with or ancillary to matters aforesaid, shall be regulated by such general or special order as the State Government may, from time to time, make in this behalf.] (3) The district fund shall be kept (a) in the Government treasury or in the bank to which the business of the Government treasury has been made over, or (b) subject to such conditions as the State Government may specify in this behalf, in such cooperative society as may be approved by the State Government. [* * * * * *] [(4) The Zilla Parishad may, from time to time, with the previous approval of the State Government invest any portion of the district fund (a) in the securities of the State or Central Government or in such other securities as the State Government may approve in this behalf; (b) in the purchase of shares of cooperative societies, or shares or debentures of any corporation (including a company) owned or controlled by the State, as the State Government may, by general or special order approve in this behalf, and vary such investments for others of the like nature and the income resulting from the securities, shares or debentures and the proceeds of the sale of the same shall be credited to the district fund] 132. District fund where to be expended [Expenditure including any grant] by a Zilla Parishad out of the district fund shall, save as otherwise provided by this Act, be made within the area subject to its authority only; but may with the sanction of the Commissioner, be made outside that area for any of the purposes of this Act, but for the purpose of maintaining its property outside that are [or for providing residential accommodation or house rent allowance in lieu thereof to the presiding authorities under subsection (2) of section 46, subsection (2) of Section 69, or as the case may be, subsection (2) of section 84 [or for holding outside such area] [but within the revenue district] conferences, receptions, ceremonies, exhibitions or social and cultural events,] no such sanction shall be necessary. 133. General charges to be defrayed. 133. General charges to be defrayed. Every Zilla Parishad shall, from the district fund at its disposal, pay (a) the monthly honoraria to the presiding authorities provided by sections 46, 69 and 84 [and the amount of sumptuary allowance placed at the disposal of the President under section 46A]; (b) the travelling and other allowances of Councilors, Members of any Panchayat Samiti or Committee and of the officers holding posts under, and the servants of the Zilla Parishad; (c) the salaries and allowances of the officers and servants of class III service and class IV service working under the Zilla Parishad; (d) pensions (including contributions towards pensions) and other retiring allowances, gratuities or compassionate allowances payable to officers and servants and their families as provided by or under this Act; (e) the cost of acquisition of land and establishment of markets; [***] (f) the cost of performance of agency functions entrusted to it; [(g) the cost of performance of the duties and functions as are entrusted to the Zilla Parishad by or under any other law for the time being in force.] 17. Section 130 of the Act of 1961 very clearly provides that, there shall be in each district a local fund which shall be called as District Fund. Section 132 of the Act of 1961 empowers the Zilla Parishad to make expenditure including any grant within the area subject to its authority. Section 133 of the Act of 1961 empowers the Zilla Parishad to pay from the District Fund at its disposal the salary, honorarium, pension and other expenses as enumerated in Section 133 of the Act of 1961. Section 133 (c) of the Act of 1961 empowers the Zilla Parishad to pay salary and allowances of the officers and servants of Class III and Class IV working under the Zilla Parishad from the District Fund at its disposal. Section 133 (d) of the Act of 1961 allows the Zilla Parishad to pay from the District Fund at its disposal pensions (including contribution towards pension), other retiring allowances, gratuity and compassionate allowances payable to the officers and servants and their families as provided by or under this Act. Section 133 of the Act of 1961 clearly provides for payment of salaries and pension to officers and servants of Class III and Class IV from the District Fund at its disposal. Section 133 of the Act of 1961 clearly provides for payment of salaries and pension to officers and servants of Class III and Class IV from the District Fund at its disposal. The said payment of salaries and pension is not from the consolidated fund of the State, but from the District Fund at its disposal. Though some grants may be received from the State in the coffers of the District Fund, still the fund defraying the pension shall not lose its character as a District Fund and cannot be said to be part of the consolidated fund of the State, inter alia would not be within the purview of Article 199 of the Constitution. 18. Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services Rules 1968 reads thus : THE MAHARASHTRA ZILLA PARISHADS DISTRICT SERVICES RULES, 1968 1. ....... 2. ....... 6. Pension : (1) Except as provided 2[sub-rules (2) and (3)] the provisions of 10[the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, as amended from time to time and for time being in force in this State including all Government orders and instructions relating to the matters provided in the rules] shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to pension and matters connected therewith to Parishad employees as they apply in relation to members of the services of the State Government. 4[(2)The State Government may, from time to time, by order direct that such portion of the dearness allowance, admissible to such classes of Parishad servants and in such ranges of basic pay as may be specified in the order, shall be treated as part of the basic pay for the purpose of computing pension]. 2[(3) A Zilla Parishad may, from time to time, pay temporary increase in the pension drawn by a Parishad employee who retired on or after the 1st day of May, 1962 at a rate not exceeding the rate sanctioned by Government to retired Government servants from time to time.] 19. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1968 prescribes that the provisions of the Pension Rules as amended from time to time and for time being in force in the State including Government orders and instructions relating to the matters provided in the rules shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to pension and matter connected thereto, to Parishad employees as it apply in relation to the members of the services of the State Government. The Pension Rules are amended. Sub Rule 2 is inserted on 31st October, 2005. The said rule provides that, these rules viz Pension Rules shall not apply to the Government servants, who are recruited on or after 01st November, 2005. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1968 clearly stipulates that the provisions of the Pension Rules as amended from time to time for the time being in force in the State including Government orders and instructions relating to the matters provided under rule shall mutatis mutandis apply with regard to pension and matters connected therewith. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 2 of the Pension Rules specifically provides that the Pension Rules shall not apply to the Government servants, who are recruited on or after 01st November, 2005. The said amendment to the Pension Rules is not subject matter of challenge. In view of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1968, the provisions of the Pension Rules, so also Government orders and instructions relating to the matters provided in the rules would apply. Apart from Rule 6 of the Rules of 1968 dealing with the pension, there is no other provision either in the Statute or any of the rules giving right to petitioners to seek pension. 20. Rule 19 of the M.E.P.S. Rules also entitles an employee of aided secondary school or aided junior college of Education or an employee of aided primary school who have opted for pension eligible for pension at the rates and in accordance with Rules as are sanctioned by the Government specifically to the employees of private schools. The employees of the private aided schools were entitled to pension in view of Rule 2 of the Pension Rules read with Rule 19 of the MEPS Rules. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 2 of the Pension Rules provides that, these rules shall not apply to the Government servants who are recruited on or after 01.11.2005. In view of the above, it cannot be held that the petitioners would be entitled to the pension. Sec. 4 of the MEPS Act also provides that subject to the provisions of this section, the State Government may make rules providing for the minimum qualification for recruitment, duties, pay, allowances, postretirement and other benefits. The powers vest with the State Government. Sec. 4 of the MEPS Act also provides that subject to the provisions of this section, the State Government may make rules providing for the minimum qualification for recruitment, duties, pay, allowances, postretirement and other benefits. The powers vest with the State Government. The State Government by amending Rule 2 of the Pension Rules has taken a conscious decision not to make applicable the Pension Rules to those appointed on or after 01st November, 2005. 21. Proviso to Section 248 of the Act of 1961 would be relevant. Proviso to Section 248 of the Act of 1961 empowers the Government to regulate the conditions of service with respect to pay-scales, dearness and other allowances, leave, pension, provident fund or any other matter in relation to conditions of service by a general or special order. 22. The State is empowered to issue special or general orders in respect of the pension as per proviso to Section 248 of the Act of 1961. Clause 4(c) of the impugned Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 clearly speaks of the Government exercising the powers conferred by proviso to Section 248 of the Act of 1961 and pursuant thereto has issued orders to apply DCPS scheme to the employees who are recruited on or after 01.11.2005 in the service of the Zilla Parishad. 23. As per clause 7 of the Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005, the amendment has been carried out in the Pension Rules. The resolution dated 31.10.2005 is pursuant is issued by the State Government under its powers pursuant to proviso to Section 248 of the Act of 1961 specifically laying down that those employees recruited on or after 01.11.2005 would be governed by the DCPS scheme. Necessary amendments are made to the Pension Rules, The Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules and the Maharashtra General Provident Fund Rules, 1998. The amendment has been carried out to the Pension Rules by notification dated 31.10.2005 by incorporating Sub Rule 2 of Rule 2 of the Pension Rules. Similar amendments are made to the General Provident Fund Scheme on the same day. The rules provide that the Government servants who are recruited on or after 01.11.2005 will not be governed by the Pension Rules. The Zilla Parishad has adopted the said rules. 24. The pension is payable to the employees pursuant to the Pension Rules. Similar amendments are made to the General Provident Fund Scheme on the same day. The rules provide that the Government servants who are recruited on or after 01.11.2005 will not be governed by the Pension Rules. The Zilla Parishad has adopted the said rules. 24. The pension is payable to the employees pursuant to the Pension Rules. Said rule itself is amended, as such the petitioners who are appointed on or after 01.11.2005 cannot claim benefit of Pension Rules and they would be governed by the DCPS scheme. 25. In the light of the above, the contention of the petitioners that, the DCPS scheme is made applicable as per executive instructions shall not have effect is not tenable and the judgment relied on by the petitioners in this regard would not apply. 26. The date on which the petitioners are appointed, the order was already issued by the State Government that they will be governed by D.C.P.S. scheme and not old pension rules. 27. The petitioners cannot equate themselves with those appointed prior to 01.11.2005. Those appointed prior to 01.11.2005 would be governed by the rules operating then. 28. In a case of D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India the classification of the pensioners was provided on the basis of date of their retirement. The Apex Court has held that such a classification is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the distinction is made on the basis of date of appointment those who are appointed on or after 01.10.2005 are not entitled for the benefits of the pension rules. In fact, when these persons are appointed on or after 01.11.2005, the pension rules were not applicable to them. Rules as on the date, the petitioners are appointed would be applicable. In the light of the above, judgment in the case of [D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of India] would not come to the aid of the petitioners. Equality is for equals that is to say those who are similarly placed are entitled for equal treatment. The Apex Court in a case of Ramesh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others has observed that the guarantee of equality does not imply that the same rules should be made applicable to all persons in spite of differences in circumstances of their service conditions. 29. The Apex Court in a case of Ramesh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others has observed that the guarantee of equality does not imply that the same rules should be made applicable to all persons in spite of differences in circumstances of their service conditions. 29. The contention of the petitioners that, the pension is hard earned money and is property within the meaning of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India need not be debated. In the cases of Bharat Petroleum (Erstwhile Burmah Shell) Management Staff Pensioners Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corportion Ltd. and Others,Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar, etc. Vs. State of Gujrat and another, etc. and State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another, it has been held by the Apex Court that, deprivation of the property must be by an act of Parliament or State Legislature, rule or Statutory order having force of law. In the present matters the proviso to Section 248 of the Act of 1961 enables the State to issue special orders with regard to pension and the order has been issued by the State Government, so also Rule 2 of the Pension Rules is amended thereby specifically laying down that the Pension Rules would not be applicable to those who are appointed on or after 01.11.2005. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 2 of the Pension Rules has been introduced by the State Government by virtue of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India having statutory force. In the light of the above aforesaid contention of the petitioners does not hold ground. 30. It is also the contention of the petitioners that, the impugned DCPS scheme is unreasonable and arbitrary. The State in its executive authority has the power to formulate the policy. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction certainly would not transgress into the field of policy decision. The executive after getting the inputs from the experts in the particular field have taken up the project. As has been deduced by the Apex Court in the catena of judgments referred to supra, that Courts would observe restraint in administrative and executive actions and the Courts would not substitute its decision, so far as the policy is concerned. Framing a policy is within the competence of the State in its executive authority. As has been deduced by the Apex Court in the catena of judgments referred to supra, that Courts would observe restraint in administrative and executive actions and the Courts would not substitute its decision, so far as the policy is concerned. Framing a policy is within the competence of the State in its executive authority. The policy decision is in the domain of the executive authority of the State. The efficacy or otherwise may not be questioned so long the same does not offend any provision of the Statute or the Constitution of India. It is not for the Courts to consider the relative merit of the different policies. The Court can not sit in judgment of the policy of the Legislature or the Executive. The Court can not strike down a policy decision taken by the Government, merely, because it feels that another decision would have been more logical or wise. It is not in the realm of the Courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular policy is suitable or whether a better policy could be evolved. The Court can intervene only, if the policy framed is irrational, arbitrary, unreasonable and when it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Clause 3 of the Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 incorporates all the details of the DCPS scheme. Second Government Resolution dated 29th November, 2010 sets out procedural provisions as regards manner in which the adjudication shall be processed. The provisions therein do not appear to be unreasonable. Ten per cent of the salary is deducted of the employees as their contribution towards the pension scheme and equal amount is contributed by the State Government. The contribution of the State Government is 50%. The employee is required to retain 40% for investment in annuity in case he wants to opt out of first stage option is given to the employee. Even otherwise retaining amount would be for the benefit of the family members of the employee. The State is contributing equally. The clauses in the Government Resolution as such do not appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable. On the contrary it would be beneficial to the petitioners. The State Government would be contributing equal amount. 31. Even otherwise retaining amount would be for the benefit of the family members of the employee. The State is contributing equally. The clauses in the Government Resolution as such do not appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable. On the contrary it would be beneficial to the petitioners. The State Government would be contributing equal amount. 31. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2455 of 2012 by order dated October 11, 2013 has also upheld Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 and G. R. dated 29.10.2010. 32. It is submitted that, the large sum of amount is recovered by the State. Considering the fact that, 10% amount of salary is required to be deducted every month and in some matters same may have been stayed, the respondents/State shall grant reasonable installments to the petitioners to deposit the amount of arrears. 33. In the light of the above no case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petitions are dismissed of. Rule discharged. No costs. 34. At this stage, the learned counsel for petitioners state that, in some of the matters stay was operating. Same be continued for further period of six weeks. 35. The view we have taken is consistent view of this Court right since the year 2013. In view of that, request for continuation of stay is refused.