- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7905 OF 2006 ... Narayan Ganpat Kalyankar ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.S.S.Patwardhan with Mr.P.G.Chavan for the Petitioner. Mr.A.H.Palekar, AGP for the State. Mr.S.R.Ganbhavale i/b Sangram Singh Yadav for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED: 8TH JULY, 2008 - 2 - P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner claims writ of mandamus directing Respondents to extend service benefits including the pension, family pension, Gratuity, commutation of leave to the Petitioner and other similarly situated employees. 2. Admittedly, the Petitioner was working in a training centre run by the Respondent No.2, which is a public trust. Therefore, employer of the Petitioner was Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 was getting grant-in-aid from the Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra. Conditions of services, therefore, of the Petitioner will be governed by the agreement that may be reached between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2. 3. The Petitioner relied on a report submitted by a Committee, which is called Vahadane Committee. Perusal of that report shows that it is recommended by that Committee that the Government should pay - 3 - pension to the employees like the Petitioner. But there is nothing on record placed by the Petitioner to show that this recommendation of the Committee was accepted by the State Government. On the contrary, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, it is specifically stated that the Government did not accept the recommendation of the Committee. There is also a letter to that effect placed on record. The report of the Committee was not accepted by the Government. Therefore, that report cannot be enforced against the Government. We have not been pointed out anything by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner which will give right to the Petitioner to claim that the Petitioner and the employees similarly circumstanced as the Petitioner should be held entitled to receive pension from the Government. We find no substance in the petition. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)