HILL MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appears to be that the respondent No. 2 was working as the Head Clerk in the petitioner School. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 2 was allotted quarter in his capacity as an employee of the School and as the respondent No. 2 retired from service on 31. 10. 2002, he had to vacate the quarter. Since the quarter was not vacated, it was decided by the General Body of the petitioner School that the papers for retiral dues of the respondent No. 2 shall not be signed by the Principal. It appears that thereafter, respondent No. 2 approached to the petitioner for preparation of the papers of retiral dues. However, the papers were not signed and the respondent No. 2 approached to the DEO by making complaint. Based on the same, respondent No. 1 herein issued show-cause notice dated 13. 05. 2003. The pertinent aspect is that, in the said show-cause notice, it was mentioned for reduction of 10% of the grant and the petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why the action should not be taken. Ultimately, the respondent No. 1 passed the order on 27. 04. 2003, after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 and directed for withholding of 25% of the grant and it is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring the present petition.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Patel, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

(3.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had allotted quarter to respondent No. 2 in the capacity as the employee and therefore, if the insistence is made for vacating of the quarter, such an approach cannot be said as unreasonable. It was also submitted that the respondent No. 2 declined to vacate the quarter and therefore, the papers were not signed pursuant to the Resolution passed by the General Body of the School. It was also submitted that the DEO in any case, had issued show cause notice for deduction of 10% of the grant whereas in the final order, grant is ordered to be withheld for 25%. Therefore, he has travelled beyond the show-cause notice. Mr. Desai, lastly submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 04. 09. 2003, the petitioners have forwarded pension papers to the authorities and pension is sanctioned and the respondent No. 2 is receiving the pension regularly. He therefore, submitted that this Court may set aside the order passed by the DEO of withholding of the grant.