Shibani Engineering Systems Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

detention certificate must be issued if ordered by cegat even if slp filed. orders - implementation a must even if slp filed. cus. act: section 129a. - article 14: [r.m. lodha, s.a. bobde & s.b. deshmukh, jj] retiral 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.....order1. rule, returnable forthwith. heard.the only justification that was put forth for not complying with the order of the cegat was the department's intention to file special leave petition before the supreme court, as is clear from exhibit t dated 20th october, 1992. mr. shah, learned advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3 is not in a position to make any statement as to whether or not, the special leave petition has at all been filed.2. mr. pochkhanawala, learned counsel for the petitioner, informs us after ascertaining, that he is in a position to make a statement that till date no such special leave petition ha been filed.3. settled legal position is that mere filing of the special leave petition is not decisive of the matter. there is no justification whatsoever for detaining the issuance of detention certificate by respondent nos. 1 to 3 consequent upon the order of the cegat. we therefore direct them to issue detention certificate within a period of two weeks from today. needless to mention that thereafter consequential action as per law will be taken by respondent no. 4.4. rule made absolute accordingly. there will be no order as to costs.certified copy expedited.