Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-employee seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with the Government Schemes and Rules framed there-under. The prayers have been amended on 14th July 2011 and the relief of quashing and setting aside G.R. dated 1st February 1984 has been sought. By another prayer added on 17th October 2006, in alternative direction is sought to extend said G.R. dated 1st February 1984 to the Workshop of respondent No.4. On 22nd November 2013 one Preranalaya (Sheltered Workshop Section) Home for Aged and Handicapped Association and Sandhi Niketan Apangachi Karmashala Employees Association have been added as petitioners.
2. The facts show that petitioner No.1 worked as Watchman from 1st March 1965 in the Sheltered Workshop Section of Home for Aged and Handicapped school run for special children by respondent No.4. He reached the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 11th July 1996 and as per order dated 06.02.1996 has been superannuated on 31st July 1996. He had made a representation to respondent No.3 seeking benefit of pension on 30th October 1996. That application has been rejected on 15th November 1996 by the office of respondent No.4 assigning reason that pension scheme is not extended/applicable to employees of Workshop. It is in this background that the petition came to be filed and has been amended thereafter from time to time.
3. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to note that G.R. dated 1st February 1984 is issued by Social Welfare Department of State of Maharashtra for releasing pension to teaching and nonteaching staff of special schools and special hostels. Said G.R. states that question of extending the same to full time teaching and nonteaching employees of recognised children hostels was under consideration of the State Government and after deliberations, Government decided to give that benefit to said employees retiring on or after 31st March 1981. The Government has clarified that special schools for the purposes of said G.R. include schools run by Voluntary Organizations duly approved and receiving grantinaid from Director of Social Welfare. In present petition, we are not concerned with the hostels. The petitioners before this Court claim to be the employees in Workshop.
4. After hearing respective counsel for quite some time, on 18th October 2011 this Court has passed the following order:-
œThe matter is part heard. Upon request made to Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4, he has today invited attention to the provisions of Special Code which regulates the affairs of handicapped Schools to point out what is Special School and what is sheltered workshop. He has also attempted to demonstrate that a sheltered workshop is not must for Special School. However, we find that for each group of such 10 Special Schools, a workshop is mandated.
The qualifications of staff to be recruited in workshop are also prescribed and Government is releasing grants for staff employed in workshop. Some amount per student is also spent by the Government for imparting them such vocational training. The management has to incur expenditure for to and fro journey of such students to workshop where professional training arrangement is made.
ShriMohgaonkar, learned counsel has also invited attention to communications dated 15.12.1999 sent by the State Government to Shri S.Q. Jama, MLA and communication dated 11.12.2009 by the Commissioner for Tribal Development also to Shri S.Q. Jama (both communications are taken on record). There, Government has communicated that it has resolved not to extend the benefit of pension to the employees in workshop.
ShriSundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner states that because of limitations of the petitioner, he was not informed about the Special Code or then the subsequent developments. He is, however, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Nakara vs. Union of India, reported at AIR 1983 SC 139, to urge that extension of pension benefits and provident fund benefits to Special Schools, which are regulated by the very same Special Code and its denial to petitioner is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has further pointed out that Government has not filed any reply on the subject. He is seeking time till after Vacation to go through the provisions of Special Code and to carry out appropriate amendments, if necessary, and to argue the matter.
ShriMohgaonkar, learned counsel has pointed out that there are about 700 such employees who may be affected because of this adjudication. He further states that similar issue is receiving consideration of Aurangabad High Court.
In this situation, we adjourn the matter till 21st November, 2011.?
5. Thereafter the matter came up again for consideration almost after one year i.e. 17th September 2012 and then this Court passed the following order:-
œHeard learned Counsel for the parties.
ShriR.S. Sundaram, learned Advocate for petitioner, submits that workshop in which petitioner was employed needs to be treated as an integral part of school for disabled as education of physically challenged persons cannot be complete without it. He further contends that such workshops are also required to be recognized by the Department.
ShriA.D. Mohgaonkar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.4, does not dispute that workshops are required to be recognized. However, according to him, the workshops do not form an integral part of the school. Pension scheme is made applicable to employees working in school and petitioner is seeking its extension to workshop. Hence, everything depends upon answer to this question about relationship between two.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader is seeking time of two weeks to respond this query.
ShriR.S. Sundaram, learned Advocate for petitioner, points out as this Court has recorded all necessary facts in its order dated 18.10.2011 and thereafter, till date no proper reply-affidavit has been filed.
We grant respondents time till 10th October, 2012 to make a definite statement in this respect.
List the matter on 10th October, 2011 in order matters.
Steno copy granted.?
6. It is, in this background that we have heard Advocate Sundaram for petitioners, learned Acting Government Pleader Mrs. Dangre for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Advocate Mohagaonkar for respondent No.4.
7. Respondent No.4, at the outset, made it clear that it supports the extension of pension scheme to employees like petitioners, who had worked in workshop. Respondent no.4, however, has not filed any reply/affidavit before this Court.
8. Advocate Sundaram on behalf of the petitioners has urged that the claim of petitioner No.1 for pension is rejected only on the ground that G.R. dated 1st February 1984 does not extend benefit of pension to Workshop. He submits that this non-extension is arbitrary and unsustainable. It has to be set aside as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, he contends that if the G.R. cannot be extended to workshop, grant of pension only to teachers working in Special Schools cannot be accepted, as it then results in hostile discrimination. He, therefore, contends that the G.R. itself needs to be quashed and set aside. He then invited our attention to charts placed with CAW Nos.2614/2013 and 2613/2013 to demonstrate that employees mentioned in charts filed with those Civil Applications (CAWs) have also worked on various posts in workshops for a period mentioned in the said chart and have received their salary in appropriate pay-scale at stage disclosed therein. Learned counsel states that these employees, who are before this Court, through its Association namely petitioners 2 and 3 are similarly situated and hence, must be given pension along with petitioner No.1.
9. In order to show that workshops constituted integral part of the schools, he has invited attention of this Court to provisions of Sections 26, 29 and 66 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as œ1995 Act?). He contends that recognizing statutory obligation casts upon by said enactment, the special schools and workshops already functioning have been attempted to be brought under proper supervision and control by respondents 1, 2 and 3 by laying down œSpecial Code? to regulate working and service conditions. Our attention has been invited to various provisions of said Code, which is amended lastly in 1997. To explain what is rehabilitation scheme envisaged under Section 66 of 1995 Act and the object behind Special Code, our attention has been drawn to The Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as œ1992 Act?). He submits that 1995 Act and 1992 Act, both, figure in aims and objects of above mentioned Special Code.
10. He has relied upon Section 2(n) and Section 11 of 1992 Act to buttress his submissions. Sections 2 (9), (10), (11), (12), (16) and (17) of the Special Code are relied upon by him to show how special child taking education in special school must get proper training in workshop. Section 33 (3) has also been relied upon for the said purpose along with Section 12 and Schedule A3 referred to therein. Chapter-III dealing with Recognition of Schools/workshop, Chapter-IV dealing with examination, Section 36 dealing with courses and teachers and Section 63 with the conditions of service, Section 64 dealing with appointment, Section 66 dealing with confidential reports, Section 67 dealing with leave and wages are also relied upon by him in an attempt to show that Special Code does not make any discrimination between school and workshop, and as such, restricting pension only to part of activity undertaken as per special Code is unsustainable. Schedule-A at the end of Special Code is also pressed into service by him to point out staffing pattern.
11. Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 (D. S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India), AIR 1984 SC 1905 (Dr. Y.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others), AIR 1996 SC 1 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi and others) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported at 1999 (2) Mh.L.J. 529 (Shaila D. Varerkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another) and unreported judgment delivered at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.5771/2011 (Vidarbha Ayurved Mahavidyalaya and others Vs. Tuleshwar Mangalmurti Dhaskat and others, Writ Petition No. 682/2012 (Action Group for pensionary Benefits to Social Work Colleges Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and Writ Petition No.3277/2012 (Maharashtra Social Work Educators Management and Staff Forum and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) on 10th June 2013 is also relied upon by him. It needs to be state that one of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) is party to this unreported judgment.
12. Advocate Mohagaonkar on behalf of respondent No.4 has supported the arguments of Advocate Sundaram. He has also invited our attention to Part-II of Special Code dealing with Service Conditions, which begins with Section 63 and more particularly Section 68 which deals with provident fund. He points out that at the relevant time question of extending pension to employees in workshop was under consideration of State Government and he submits that as workshops are integral part of education to special children, different treatment to workshop employees cannot be accepted.
13. Learned Acting Government Pleader has strongly opposed petition. She submits that a plea for quashing the Government Resolution on the basis of hostile discrimination needs to be substantiated with necessary facts. According to her in petition, though amended, those facts are absent. She points out that petitioner No.1 was aware of the reason for denial when he received the adverse order. In spite of that, material on record is insufficient to demonstrate that workshop in which said petitioner was working constituted integral part of the school run by respondent No.4. She contends that neither said school nor workshop are before this Court. She also seeks support from unreported order dated 25th March 2014 in Writ Petition No.15/1987 where similar challenge has been rejected. According to her, petitioner No.1 has not pointed out whether he was holding an approved post, whether his service were duly recognised by the Department and whether he was receiving salary from the Department. She points out that he was not holding any technical post and post for Watchman does not figure in staffing pattern of workshop. In relation to petitioners 2 and 3, attention is invited to the fact that except for bringing associations in the shape of respondents 2 and 3 on record, necessary factual data has not been incorporated. She contends that had that data been on record, respondents 1 to 3 would have been in a position to file appropriate reply to assist this Court in resolving dispute. She contends that charts on which reliance is being placed forms part of application for intervention and after that prayer came to be granted, those charts have not been made part of pleadings.
14. She states that arguments of petitioners and respondent No. 4 were heard yesterday and arguments of other respondents could not be completed. In the light of the arguments advanced, she attempted to collect further instructions and those instructions show that there was similar challenge before Aurangabad Bench of this Court. That challenge was allowed to be withdrawn and the Government was expected to consider the representation of the staff of workshop. The said representation of staff of workshop has been rejected in 2006. She points out that thus challenge in present writ petition is only to G.R. dated 01.02.1984 but subsequent denial by the State Government in 2006 or then on 15.12.2009 has not been assailed. In this background, no case for considering the challenge in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is made out. She submits that either petitions have to point out an intelligible differentiate or then its absence or nexus with the object sought to be achieved by impugned clarification. Relevant material for this scrutiny is not placed on record. Hence, the Government cannot be called upon to meet such challenge.
15. She orally sought leave of this Court to place on record a note dated on 10.12.2013 sent by Commissioner for Handicapped, Maharashtra to respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra in relation to a question then before State Assembly. However, we have rejected her request as it is made belatedly.
16. She points out that all judgments on which Advocate Sundaram has placed reliance are looked into by this Court while delivering judgment in three writ petitions on 10th June, 2013. She submits that after 2005 State Government has taken a policy decision and since then pension is no longer a condition of service uniformally available. According to her, the case law relied upon by petitioners needs to be appreciated in this changed scenario with proper change in prospective. She contends that as the petitioners never had pension as a condition of service, after 2005 challenge to denial of pension on the ground of violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India, in State of Maharashtra is unsustainable.
17. Advocate Sundaram invites our attention to the fact that most of the assertions in writ petition have gone un-traversed. He points out that on 10.08.1990 workshop of respondent No.4 was granted salary grants and after 23.01.2003, G.P.F. has been granted to employees working in workshop and thus contributory provident fund scheme has been made applicable. Paragraph No.6 of the writ petition is read out to demonstrate how denial of pension in this situation is arbitrary.
18. The pleadings in the petition show that petitioner No.1 Tulsiram s/o Ganpat Motghare alone initially had filed this petition. He pointed out that he worked as Watchman from 01.03.1965 and retired on 31.07.1996 after reaching the age of 60 years. He has further stated that later he got knowledge about pension scheme and other retiral benefits, such as gratuity, provident fund etc. After getting knowledge, he submitted application and then he points out its rejection. He also relied upon pension released to one Francis Bastian, Caretaker-cum-Attendant and in this background the challenge has been posed. By amendment paragraph Nos.6-A to 6-E have been added. Amended paragraphs do not give details of any individual employees working in the workshop.
19. The Government Resolution dated 01.02.1984 admittedly, extend pension only to teaching and nonteaching employees in special schools. It also extends the same to hostel for such special children. It does not deal with workshops at all.
20. Perusal of Special Code as amended upto 1997 shows that on 27.08.1997 its draft was placed by Social Welfare Department before the State Government. Earlier communication sent by Director of said Department from Pune to Secretary of the Department on 17.09.1996 shows that he also makes mention of 1992 Act and 1995 Act. He has pointed out that both Central Acts have emphasized need of proper education, rehabilitation and all-round development of special persons. He has thereafter stated that those provisions needed to be incorporated in Special Code regulating special schools and hence amendment was felt necessary. Thus, Special Code on which petitioners place reliance has come into existence.
21. Section (10) thereof appearing in Part-I defines Special School to mean a school for special children whether residential or nonresidential in which special training has been made available workshop for handicap has been defined in Section-11 to mean a workshop in which adult specially abled person are given training of skilled and unskilled trades. Section (17) defines rehabilitation to include vocational training. However, it is prescribed that such training shall be imparted by an institution certified/authorized by rehabilitation council. Section (13) defines Manager means a person appointed by a management of workshop to look after the affairs of such workshop and hostel, Special Teacher has been defined to mean a person holding qualification as prescribed by 1992 Act. Section (32) defines Inspector to mean a person giving vocational training to specially abled persons and holding qualifications, as prescribed by Vocational Training Department. It is clarified in the Code that word œTeacher? is to be understood as referring to special school while word œInstructor? is to be understood as referring to Instructor in a workshop. Part-IV is on examination, syllabus and books. Section 33(3) is about training in workshops. It has been mentioned that courses which are approved by Vocational Training Institute need to be completed in such workshops within the time stipulated by the department and examination shall be conducted by Technical Education Department. Special procedure has been prescribed in relation to trades, which are not highly skilled with an arrangement for examining the students undertaking that course.
22. Chapter-II is about licence/approval to Special Schools and Workshops. Section 12 therein is about workshop. It stipulates that it is necessary to impart vocational training to the students, who have completed their education through special schools. The Code therefore, prescribes one workshop for every 10 special schools in a district for such special persons. It is further stipulated that for each category of the disability, there should be one school in the district and in each workshop, minimum four trades must be taught. List of trades to be taught is given in Schedule A-3. Schedule A-3 in its Part-A deals with trades in Engineering of one year duration where trades like Carpenter, Mechanic, Molder, Plumber, Mason etc. included. In Part-B, Engineering courses with two years duration are specified and those include Wireless Operator, Automobile Mechanic, Wireman, Tracer, Surveyor, Electric Wireman, Tool and Die-maker etc. Non-Engineering trades are given in Part-C which include Bookbinder, Hairdresser, Tailor, Embroidery, Cobbler, Baker and Confectioner etc. When this arrangement and trades are viewed in backdrop of Section 11 defining workshop, it becomes apparent that these courses are for adult, who pass out of Special Schools and not for children taking education therein. There are certain other provisions in Special Code which also deals with the workshops. However, question before us is to find out whether workshops in which petitioners before this Court claim to have worked constituted integral part of the special schools to which those workshops were attached. Insofar as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, we have already noted that they have not given list of members or then they have not pointed out capacity in which their members were working. Charts with intervention application show posts like Superintendent, Hostel Warden, Accountant, Instructor, Peon, Caretaker, Clerk, Maidservant, Cook-man etc. Staffing pattern provided for in Special Code shows a post of workshop Superintendent (Managerial) and person holding that post has to possess following qualification: œTechnical Training Certificate of State Government with two years experience or then Graduate and training for imparting instructions to disable person with three years experience?.
Next post shown is of Accountant, thereafter ClerkTypist, Peon, Attendant and then lastly Instructor (Acategory). Instructor Acategory has to possess qualification of a training imparted by Technical Department of State Government in concerned trade. These six posts are provided on establishment of a workshop which has got residential accommodation for 50 students and 75 nonresidential students. The status of workshops before this Court is not brought on record. It is, therefore, obvious that claim made by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 before this Court cannot be looked into.
23. Insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, he has been shown as Watchman. The staffing pattern noted above, does not show a post of Watchman. Petitioners have in paragraph No.6-D of petition stated that workshop was getting salary grants and from 23.01.2003 contributory provident fund is extended to that workshop. Whether his appointment was approved and whether he was receiving salary from said grants is not clearly brought on record.
24. The question before this Court was whether special school where teaching and non teaching staff worked and with whom the comparison is made by petitioners could not have run without the, alleged workshops. Special Code shows that workshops envisaged therein are material for imparting vocational training to students who pass out of Special Schools and are adults. It does not seem to be a type of education like education in subject of Physics or Chemistry which has to essentially consist of theory and practical classes. This Court on two occasions i.e. firstly on 18.10.2011 passed one order and thereafter, on 17.09.2012 has passed another order. In spite of these orders, data showing that education in special school of respondent No.4 could not have been complete without workshop in which petitioner was functioning has not been brought on record.
25. In this situation, we find the facts on record are insufficient to consider the challenge as raised, and therefore, we cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.