1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1005 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Coram: Naresh H. Patil and Shrihri P. Davare, JJ. Date : 24.11.2010 1. Heard Shri V.V. Ingle, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri V.D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, Shri K.B. Chaudhary, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 and Shri B.G. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.5. 2. Petitioners are retired employees who were working with Respondent Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha, as Secretary. They retired between the period 1999 to 2000. They have filed present writ petition in the year 2007, seeking directions to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to forward 2 their pension papers to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the petitioners did not hold civil posts, neither they were employed under the State services and, therefore, they do not have right to claim any relief against the State authorities. 4. We have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.3 wherein it is stated that the petitioners were employees of Cooperative sector and they were not government employees. The deponent has averred in paras 3 and 4 of reply, as under: "3. I say and submit that, it is admitted by the Petitioners that, they are employees of cooperative sector and they are not Government employees for which the rules and regulations differs. The 3 disbursement of P.F. and other benefits for employees under State Government are attended and disbursed by Respondent No.2 and not by Respondent No.3. Since the employees of the Government of Maharashtra has their own P.F. Act, which is not related to the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as the said Act) hence the rules and regulations of this Act are totally separate and benefits under both the Acts i.e. General Provident Funds Act and E.P.F. and M.P. Act are different. 4. I say and submit that, the Petitioners are not Government employees and hence rules and regulations for such employees are not applicable under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous 4 Provisions Act, 1952 and, therefore, contentions of the Petitioner in that respect have no relevance as regards to the present Respondent No.3 and, therefore, denied by Respondent No.3." 5. In the light of stand adopted by the respondents, we find that the petitioners have no right to seek relief against the respondents, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 6. There is no merit in the writ petition and hence, petition stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ((NARESH H. PATIL, J.) pnd/wp1005.08