BALPRASAD KAMBA KRISHNA DUBEY Vs. HEAD MASTER MARWADI VIDYALAYA HIGH SCHOOL BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the teachers employed in Marwadi Vidyalaya High School, V.P. Road, Bombay. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners pray for a writ or direction directing the respondents, i.e. the Head Master of the High School, the Director of Education and the State of Maharashtra, to withdraw their orders dated 8th February, 1972 and 29th April, 1972 or to quash the same. It is not in dispute that the Vidyalaya of which the petitioners are the teachers is governed by the Secondary Schools Code and happens to be an aided school. Under Rule 70 of the said Code, as it existed prior to 4-11-1968, all teachers like the petitioners were under an obligation to subscribe to the provident fund as prescribed by the Education Department of the State of Maharashtra. Such rules regulating the provident fund for the employees in the secondary and special schools were already framed by the Government in or about the year 1955. In terms of the said rules the petitioners did execute a declaration in form A prescribed under the said Rules and did contribute month by month their own contributions to such provident fund. It is not in dispute that the management of the school also was under in obligation to make contributions and teachers like the petitioners were entitled to get the amount of this provident fund with interest including the contributions made by the teachers and the management along with the contributions by the Government at the end of their career or in some other contingencies when services of the teacher in the school come to an end.

(2.) Under the Resolution of the Government dated 4th November, 1968, Revised Pension Rules of 1950 as well as Family Pension Scheme sanctioned by the Government on 8th May, 1964, applicable to the State Government servants was made applicable to the teachers in all such secondary schools. To the teachers employed, after 1-4-1966 in all such secondary schools, the scheme became applicable automatically. To the teachers, however, who had joined service before 1-4-1966, the application of the scheme was made optional leaving it to the teachers either to accept the benefits available to them under the contributory provident fund and continue under the said scheme or to opt for pension scheme contemplated under the above Government Resolution dated 4-11-1968.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioners did exercise their option in favour of the pension scheme before the date prescribed therefore. The plain effect thereof is that the petitioners ceased to continue under the contributory provident fund scheme.