Arjun Nihalani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

.....benefit - classification between part time lecturers and full time teachers held, the part-time lecturers form a class by themselves and the said classification between part time lecturers and full-time teachers for purpose of granting retrial benefits cannot be said to be unconstitutional or bad in law -- consumer protection act, 1986 -- article 16; right to pension held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled. retirement benefit; differentiation between full time teachers and part-time lecturers government resolution providing for retrial benefits to full-time teaching staff part-time lecturer were not entitled to said benefit held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled. .....gunwantbhai d. hirani bearing appeal no. 151/1989 and the said appeal is pending for final hearing. mr. velji urged that the issues involved in the connected appeal are identical. in the event if mr. gunwantbhai d. hirani succeeds, then the eviction order will stand vacated. since the eviction order passed against the petitioner is the same, in the interests of justice, delay deserves to be condoned and the learned district judge ought to have condoned the delay.5. it may be stated that there is some dispute between mr. gunwantbhai d. hirani and the petitioner as regards the possession and other incidental matters. mr. gunwantbhai d. hirani claims to be presently occupying the first floor in the said building claiming certain rights whereas according to the petitioner, mr. gunwantbhai d. hirani is a trespasser. there are also some proceedings pending between the two parties. having regard to these various circumstances, mr. velji urged that it was a fit case where the learned district judge should have condoned the delay.6. mr. sawant, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, vehemently opposed and urged that no case whatsoever for condonation of delay has been made out. after hearing the parties at great length and bearing in mind the substantial state as regards the property involved in the present petition, we are of the opinion that in the interests of justice, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to contest and challenge the eviction order passed against him. we accordingly condone the delay and grant misc. application no. 220/1991. appeal be registered and be disposed of in accordance with, law. it is desirable that the petitioner's appeal be heard alongwith appeal no. 151/1989 and be disposed of in accordance with law. since the indulgence is shown to the petitioner, the petitioner will pay the respondents' costs rs. 250/- in two sets. civil application no. 948/1993 in this writ petition to stand summarily rejected. certified copy expedited.