PROFESSOR A S KASLIWALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in V.T. Choksi Sarvajanik Law College, Surat on 07.08.1974 and then was appointed as a Principal of the said College on 01.03.1989 and he retired as a Principal of the said College on 31.03.2007, but was continued till the end of academic term upto 14.06.2007 in view of the policy of the government. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was wrongly suspended and the College management took a decision on 07.05.1999 to terminate the service of the petitioner. On 07.05.1999 the petitioner therefore, approached the learned Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") by way of Application No. 49 of 1999 and by way of interim order dated 08.09.1999, the learned Tribunal was pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order of the termination. However, during the passage of time, and during the pendency of the said proceedings, the college management and the petitioner appears to have entered into a settlement and on 11.06.2007 in due deference to the said settlement, the order of punishment appears to have been recalled and the settlement took place, on account of payment of lump sum amount of Rs.9,25,000/- by the college management to the petitioner by way of salary for the intervening period. The petitioner was then reinstated in the service, but on account of attaining the age of superannuation, retired from the service till the end of the academic term on 15.06.2007. The settlement was produced on record on 22.08.2007. It has been further asserted that when the said settlement was produced on record, learned AGP appearing then before the learned Tribunal made an endorsement that he has no objection on the said settlement and the proceedings came to be disposed of on 13.09.2007. The learned Tribunal while disposing of the same was pleased to issue certain directions which read as under:-

(3.) The petition appears to have been admitted and since the petitioner being a retired Principal of law college in the year 2007, by issuing certain orders, the matter was posted and ultimately, has come up for final disposal before this Court in which learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner at the age of nearly 70 years has been tossed in the litigation, though has made out a case of claiming benefits, the same has not been made available to the petitioner. It has been submitted that the settlement which took place between the management and the petitioner was rather endorsed at the relevant point of time by the government representative, and the said order has not been challenged, the action of non consideration of the case of the petitioner is resulting into serious prejudice. It has been submitted that similarly situated lecturers have been extended such benefit, whereas though the petitioner has retired long bank, the benefit is not available. Surprisingly, as per the say of learned advocate Mr. Pujara that period has been excluded without granting any opportunity to the petitioner nor without extending any opportunity of explanation and, therefore, the decision to curtail the period is grossly in violation of the principles of natural justice. It has further been contended that though the gratuity amount has not been paid and that delay which took place over number of years deserves to be considered with interest upon it at the rate of 18%. It has further been contended that a copy of the settlement dated 22.08.2007 was already made available to the petitioner thereupon, the learned Tribunal disposed of the application with a direction by way of order dated 13.09.2007 which is not challenged anywhere in the proceedings and, therefore, the authorities are not obeying the directions which are issued by the learned Tribunal. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara has submitted by referring to page 18 that the option has been given specifically on 08.12.2000 and similar options have been given to other sets of employees as well and though they have submitted the option at much belated stage, their cases have been considered and have been extended the benefit, which aspect is also referred to by learned advocate Mr. Pujara by drawing attention to the orders passed by this Court in other proceedings. It has further been submitted that there is no provision under the Act or the Rules to reduce the period, thereby to deprive their legitimate benefit. In fact, it is nothing but a clear example of non compliance of the direction of the learned Tribunal. Hence, the relief prayed for deserves to be granted. The petitioner has further contended that he has now reached the age around 74 years and except para 5 of page 53 of the petition compilation, there is no other impediment. On the contrary there was a clear no objection, referred and endorsed on the purshis of settlement which is reflecting on page 52. Of course, there is a condition mentioned that there shall be no objection, provided, no liability of government will arise. In that case, such is the position, the petitioner is entitled to seek benefit.