ISHWAR CHANDER SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who retired as the Principal of a Government senier Secondary School in June 1990, was aggrieved by certain orders passed by the respondents. He represented. The representations were not decided. Be consequently, approached this Court through the present writ petition with a prayer for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the representations by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. The writ petition was admitted. Simultaneously, the Motion Bench gave a direction to the respondents to "pass appropriate orders on the representations filed by the petitioner with regard to the reliefs claimed and submit an additional affidavit in this court in that respect." In pursuance to the directions of the Motion bench, the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana passed an order dated December 8,1994.- A copy of the order was produced on the record. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner were declined. Vide order dated July 21, 1995, the petitioner was permitted to file an affidavit challenging this order. The respondents were permitted to file a reply. The affidavits have been filed.

(2.) The petitioner has made a grievance in respect of the following four claims:-

(3.) While the petitioner claims that the benefits have been wrongly denied to him, the respondents urge diat the benefits are not admissible. What is the correct position? Each one of the claims can be separately considered. Reg. (i) and (ii):