KOKILABEN N. TRIVEDI Vs. DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Misc. Civil Application, the applicant- original petitioner has sought for modification/ clarification/ further direction of the oral judgment dated 21.12.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.6051 of 2010 and has sought incidental relief. The prayer clause of the application reads as under:-

(2.) The applicant- original petitioner has come out with a case that while disposing of the main petition by way of an order dated 21.12.2018 passed in main Special Civil Application, certain directions were issued, as a result of which, the applicant is entitled to all consequential and incidental retirement benefits, including, gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment with all statutory interest. However, as per the say of the applicant, the opponent Nos.1 and 2 herein thoroughly misconstrued the direction and thereby paid only back wages with interest of a limited period, as a result of which, the applicant was constrained to write a letter on 2.3.2019 inter alia requesting for actual retirement benefits, but having received absolutely negative response, after representing on number of occasions, the applicant is constrained to prefer this application in the form of seeking modification/ declaration. Total outstanding amount has been forwarded to the opponent authorities by way of calculation-sheet along with interest, but nothing has been paid so far, which has resulted into filing of the present application.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Rawal appearing for the applicant has submitted that since the original action of the authority itself is found to be non est and came to be set aside, necessary consequence must follow and whatever due benefits which are amenable to the applicant be released considering her past long length of service as if her discontinuance has not taken place. It has further been submitted that the order passed by the Court while disposing of the main petition is thoroughly misconstrued by the authority and the authority has adopted a too technical approach and just paid a back wages for the period which is spelt out in the order. The respondent cannot ignore due benefits, like pension, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. more particularly in view of the order passed in Civil Application No.9140 of 2011 dated 2.9.2011. Mr. Rawal has submitted that the respondent authority has thereby deprived the applicant from the legitimate benefits of past 20 years' services, which the applicant has put in. Hence, present Misc. Civil Application is filed for seeking clarification and to pass appropriate order.