THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No. 857 of 2006
% 04.12.2014
Between:
# The Management of William Moon High School. Versus $ Smt.Radhabai Shinde and others.
... APPELLANT ...RESPONDENTS < Gist:
> Head Note:
! COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT :- Sri Aka Venkataramana ^COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS :- G.P. for School Education ? Cases Referred:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No.857 of 2006 JUDGMENT:- (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The writ appeal arises under a peculiar set of facts.
The husband of respondent No.1, namely Sri Shivaji Shinde, was employed as Hindi Pandit in the appellant-institution on 01.06.1957 and simultaneously, the post held by Shinde was brought under the purview of grant-in-aid. On account of ill-health, Sri Shinde took voluntary retirement with effect from 30.09.1993. He was not granted pension on the ground that he did not have the minimum pensionable service. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.29932 of 1995. The writ petition was disposed of on 24.04.1996 directing that for the period anterior to 01.07.1977, the appellant shall pay pension and for the subsequent period till the date of retirement, the Government shall pay pension to Sri Shinde. The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1203, dated 11.08.1997, relaxing the Revised Pension Rules in favour of Sri Shinde to enable him to draw the pension. After his death, his wife, respondent No.1 herein, was being paid family pension.
Respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.5872 of 2001 with a prayer to direct the appellant herein to settle the pension and other benefits in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.29932 of 1995 and according to her the amount aggregates to Rs.1,55,274/-
. The writ petition was allowed through order, dated 22.02.2006, duly taking note of the order passed in W.P.No.29932 of 1995. Hence, this writ appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for School Education for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
By the time the appellant-institution and the post held by late Sri Shinde were admitted to grant-in-aid, he has put in 20 years of service. After working for 16 years in the grant-in-aid post, Sri Shinde took voluntary retirement. Since he was not paid pension, he filed W.P.No.29932 of 1995. The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, passed the order with the following directions:
“Accordingly I direct the third respondent to pay the pension and other benefits for the period before the institution was taken in grant-in-aid and that the Government to pay the benefits for the period from 01.07.1977 to 13.09.1993 i.e. after the institution was taken in grant-in-aid. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
However, it is stated that the petitioner is blind person and he has retired as long back as on 13.09.1993 and that he has not been paid any pension and other benefits. In the circumstances, the respondents shall finalise and pay the pension and other benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Subsequent to this, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1203, dated 11.08.1997, relaxing the conditions and enabling Sri Shinde to draw the pension. After his death, respondent No.1 is being paid the family pension. Respondent No.1 laid claim for a sum of Rs.1,55,274/- on the strength of the order passed in W.P.No.29932 of 1995.
It is, no doubt, true that no appeal was preferred by the appellant against the order passed in W.P.No.29932 of 1995. The fact, however, remains that the maintainability of W.P.No.5872 of 2001 itself becomes doubtful. The reason is that no writ petition can be filed for enforcement of the order passed in another writ petition. The normal course is to file a contempt case for enforcement of the directions issued in the writ petition.
Be that as it may, we find it difficult to sustain the order passed in W.P.No.29932 of 1995 insofar as it has directed the appellant herein to pay the pension for the period anterior to 01.07.1977. The first reason is that the services in the private educational institutions are not pensionable. Hence, the question of requiring the appellant to pay any pension does not arise. The second is that even where an employee has put in service in more organisations than one, and the services in all such organisations are pensionable, only one pension becomes payable on retirement. The only difference would be that the services in various organisations have to be tagged and the corresponding organisation must be required to make the contribution. Once the services in the appellant-organisation are not pensionable, the question of the services rendered prior to the admission of the post in grant-in-aid being tagged on to the pensionable service does not arise. At any rate, the hardship, which Sri Shinde was facing on account of the shortage of pensionable service was mitigated by the Government by issuing G.O.Rt.No.1203, dated 11.08.1997, which not only enabled him to draw pension, but also confer right upon respondent No.1 to draw the family pension.
Therefore, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the order passed in the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Date:04.12.2014 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl