NATVARLAL MAGANLAL SONI Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. Rule was issued in this case on 26-8-1986, and by way of interim order the respondents were directed to determine the amount of pension and other benefits payable to the petitioner before 13/10/1986. That exercise has been undertaken and the pension has been fixed at Rs. 89.00 per month. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that not a single pie has been paid to the petitioner till now.

(2.) The petitioner, who retired from the post of a Primary Teacher on 30th November, 1985 filed this writ petition praying therein that directions be issued to the respondents to pay the difference of selection grade, gratuity, provident fund, insurance, leave salary from 21-4-1980 to 5-1-1983 and pension with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The petitioner made grievance that while calculating the pension of the petitioner, the period from 9/03/1967 to 21/04/1980 was not taken into account for the qualifying service. By not taking into consideration the aforesaid period of service, the pension has been fixed at Rs. 89.00 per month which is much lower than the amount which it actually should have been. The petitioner fell sick and he became bed-ridden, and as such he could not attend to his duties from 9-3-1967. In the month of April, 1974 he submitted application for joining the duties, but the respondents did not allow him to join. In the circumstances, after serving notice to the respondents the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 1297 of 1976 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The suit was compromised and the Court has recorded the compromise, and on the said basis the suit has been decided. A copy of the order of the City Civil Court has been produced by the petitioner at Annexure-A to the petition.

(3.) The respondents have not filed reply to the writ petition and as such the averments made in the petition stand uncontroverted. During the course of hearing it also emerged that the respondents have not disputed the fact that the suit has been compromised and also about correctness of the document Annexure-A. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the compromise was arrived at between the parties wherein it was decided that the interregnum, i.e., from 1977 to 20/04/1980, shall be treated as period of continuous service for all purposes such as family pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits, though for the said period the petitioner will not be entitled to wages. Despite the aforesaid compromise, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have not honoured the same.