(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Facts leading to this petition, in short, can be stated as under: -
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1961 in the office of respondent No. 4. In 1969 the petitioner's service was terminated. The petitioner then started litigation for his reinstatement. He filed a civil suit for declaration that he is entitled to reinstatement and back -wages etc. This litigation went up to High Court and the petitioner succeeded. This Court while dismissing the second appeal filed by respondent No. 4 directed them to reinstate the petitioner and to pay him arrears of back -wages. On 01.11.1990 the petitioner thus started his work. In view of this the petitioner succeeded in establishing that he worked as a Clerk with respondent No. 4 without any interruption from 1969.
(3.) THE petitioner got reinstatement on 01.11.1990. Had he continued his work as a Clerk till the age of his superannuation, he would have been entitled to pension under the scheme. But the case of the petitioner is rather weird. On 08.12.1990, the petitioner submitted his resignation with one month notice. He made it clear in his letter of resignation that he was entitled to arrears of his salary from 1972 till October, 1990 and also earned leave salary and gratuity. Respondent No. 4 did not respond to this letter of resignation, but it is a fact that the petitioner did not work as a Clerk with respondent No. 4 after 08.12.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner's miseries started. He started demanding the above mentioned amount, but in vain. He was required to resort to contempt proceedings before this Court pursuant to which respondent No. 4 paid him certain amount in various installments. The total amount paid to the petitioner thus was Rs.2,24,603/ -. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 states that this amount represented back -wages only. It is thus clear that the petitioner is still not paid his earned leave salary, gratuity and provident fund.