Suman @ Seema Vs. Narendra @ Nanasaheb - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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 employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled. r.m. lodha, j.1. this revision application under section 115 of the code of civil procedure has been filed by applicant suman aggrieved by the order dated 20-6-89 passed by the joint civil judge, senior division, amravati, rejecting the application filed by her before the said court under section 10 of the code of civil procedure for staying the proceedings in hindu marriage petition no. 52 of 1988 filed by the non-applicant narendra on 23-3-1988 in the said court.2. the facts of the case are that both the applicant and the non-applicant are husband and wife and matrimonial dispute arose between the parties leading to filing of divorce petition by the wife applicant, bearing hindu marriage petition no. 43 of 1988 in the court of the joint civil judge, junior division, amravati, on 17-3-1988 under section 13 of the hindu marriage act, 1955. subsequent to the filing of the proceedings for divorce by the wife on 17-3-1988, the non-applicant husband filed an application under section 9 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights on 23-3-1988 in the said court, which has been registered as hindu marriage petition no. 52 of 1988.3. the wife moved an application under section 10 of the code of civil procedure contending that the subsequent proceedings filed by the husband, viz., hindu marriage petition no. 52 of 1988, between the same parties be stayed.4. the trial court by the order impugned has rejected the said application filed under section 10 of the code of civil procedure, on the ground that the point for determination in two proceedings are not identical and same and, therefore, subsequent hindu marriage petition no. 52 of 1988 filed by the non-applicant cannot be stayed.5. without going into the reasons given by the joint civil judge, senior division, amravati, interest of justice demands that both the proceedings should have been tried together even if the subsequent proceeding in hindu marriage petition no. 52 of 1988 did not raise identical questions which have been raised by the wife in hindu marriage petition no. 43 of 1988. the joint civil judge, senior division, amravati ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under section 151 of the code of civil procedure by consolidating the two proceedings and trying both the proceedings together.6. in this view of the matter, the order dated 20-6-1989 passed by the joint civil judge, senior division, amravati, is modified and the said court is directed to consolidate both proceedings and proceed with both the proceedings in hindu marriage petition nos. 43 of 1988 and 52 of 1988 together and decide both these proceedings by a common judgment. order accordingly.