MANJULABEN KISHRCHANDRA MISTRY Vs. DISRTICT EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appears to be that there were inquiries and the proceedings against the Petitioner, and ultimately a compromise purshis was filed before the Director of Education on 15. 9. 1971 whereby it was agreed that the Petitioner is to be continued in service upto June 1972 and in the next academic year from January 1972 he will be relieved from service. The another relevant condition of the compromise was that the Petitioner was to be paid the difference based on the calculation of Sarela Pay Scale. It appears that thereafter the Petitioner, as per the compromise was relieved from service. The said action of the School for terminating the services of the Petitioner was challenged by the Petitioner initially in the suit proceedings, which came to be transferred to the Tribunal. Ultimately, the Petitioner did not succeed and therefore, the present proceedings before this Court.

(2.) IT appears that the Respondent No. 3 has filed the affidavit in reply and in the said affidavit in reply the copy of the deposition recorded in the proceedings of Appeal No. 400 of 1974 is produced. In the examination-in-chief the Petitioner has admitted that he has been relieved from June 1972 and the penalty is also also foregone and the difference of the pay as per Sarela Pay Commission are already received by him on 21. 3. 1973 as per the compromise. However, he stated that the compromise is not acceptable to him, and therefore, for challenging the compromise he had filed Civil Suit, which has been subsequently transferred to the Tribunal.

(3.) THE aforesaid factum clearly shows that the settlement has already been acted upon and the Petitioner has already received the amount pursuant to the settlement.