STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusDR. SHRI HARI SHANKAR VAIDHYA AND ORS.

             STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.                                    A
                            v.
         DR. SHRI HARi SHANKAR VAIDHYA AND ORS.

                             APRIL 7, 1997

            [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]                               B

      Service Law :

     Maharashtra State Govemment Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982:

       Teachers working in aided educational institutions like Ayurvedic C
Unani and Homeopathic Colleges-Applicability of the Rules for giving
benefit of Pension and Gratuity Schemes-Government directed to consider
extension of the said benefits to the teachers in a phased manner.

     State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC D
730 & State of H.P. v. H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing
Committees & Ors., [1995) 4 SCC 507, referred to.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2B78-79
of 1997.
                                                                              E
     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.6.96 of the Mumbai High
Court in W.P. No. 3508 of 1992.

      V. Mohta and D.M. Nargolkar for the Appellants.

      Dushyant A. Dave and Mrs. M. Karanjawala for the Respondents.           F
     The following Order of the Court was delivered :

     Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

      These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the           G
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, made on June 14, 1996 in Writ
Petition No. 3508/92 and Writ Petition No. 2645/90.

       The admitted position is that the respondents are the teachers work-
ing in Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathic private aided educational in-
stitutions. One of the questions which requires examination is : whether      H
                                     697
    698                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A they are eligible for pension and gratuity scheme on par with state Govern-
    ment Civil Servants under the Maharashtra State Government Civil Service
    (Pension) Rules, 1982, (for short, the 'Rules'). Admittedly, per se, the Rules
    do not apply to them. Pursuant to the recommend·itions made by UGC,
    the Government of Maharashtra by its Resolution dated May 26, 1981 have
    adopted the uniform pay-scales being paid to the non-teaching staff and
B   teachers working in aided educational institutions, i.e. Ayurvedic, Unani
    and Homeopathic colleges. By another Resolution dated July 29, 1983, they
    extended the benefit to the non-Government organisations on par with the
    Government organisations. Since the Government have not extended the
    benefit of pension and gratuity scheme, a writ petition was filed in the High
C   Court in that behalf. The High Court has disposed it of in the impugned
    order. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

          As regards the grant-in-aid, this is not in controversy and, therefore,
    we need not go into the question. The only question is : whether the
D   respondents are entitled to the pension and gratuity on par with Govern-
    ment servants? Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State,
    has contended that in view of the huge financial outlay, the Government
    has been, in a phased manner, extending the benefits from time to time
    and, therefore, the direction cannot be given to tide down the hands of the
    Government to extend all the benefits to all of them at a stretch. Shri D .A.
E   Dave, learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has
    contended that when the grant-in-aid and the pension were not being
    extended to the teachers working in the private law colleges, the High
    Court has given direction to extend the benefit which was affirmed by this
    Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ma11ubh_ai Pragaji Vashi & Ors., [1995) 5
    SCC 730. Therefore, the same benefit may be extended to them. He also
F
    cited State of H.P. v. H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing
    Committees & Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 507 wherein this Court has directed to
    extend grant-in-aid to the private educational institutions, middle-class and
    lower middle-class aided schools.

G         In view of the respective contentions, the only question that arises
    for consideration is : whether the High Court would be justified to grant
    the pension and gratuity scheme to the teachers working in the Ayurvedic,
    U nani and Homeopathic aided institutions. It is seen that pursuant to the
    direction issued by this Court, the pension and gratuity scheme were
H   extended to the Law Colleges from 1995. Whether the scheme could be
                        STATEv. H.S. VAIDHYA                           699

extended or not is a question of an executive policy and the Court would A
not take the responsibility of directing the Government to extend the
policy. Court requires examination as to how tke policy laid down is being
worked out. It is stated that since huge financial outlay is involved in
extending the benefits and the Government is not intending to deny the
benefit to the segment of the teachers, we appreciate the stand taken by
the Government. The Government is, therefore, directed to consider ex- B
tension of the benefit of pension and gratuity scheme to the teachers
working in the Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathic aided educational
institutions in a phased manner, as was done with respect to the other aided
institutions.

       The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
                                                                             c
G.N.                                                  Appeals disposed of.




                                                                                 .,.c.