VIRENDER SINGH DAHIYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside order dated 29.8.2000 (P-6) passed by the Commissioner-cum-Director General School Education, Haryana (respondent No. 2) directing recovery of Rs. 51,952/- and the subsequent order dated 31.5.2006 (P-7) passed in appeal by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana (respondent No. 1) upholding the aforementioned order.

(2.) The petitioner has been working on the post of Assistant in the office of respondent No. 2. One Shri M.M. Singh filed C.W.P. No. 2688 of 1997. Another petition registered as C.W.P. No. 11215 of 1997 was also filed by one Shri S.J. Pathak. In both the petitions, claim was made before this Court for grant of benefit of gratuity in respect of the service rendered in private colleges before they were taken over by the Government. The aforementioned relief was based on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of Chander Sain v. State of Haryana . The petitioner herein was required to assist in preparation of reply, which was filed on 14.10.1997 in the aforementioned cases. The stand taken in the reply was that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chander Sain's case (supra) did not apply to the cases as pleaded in the aforementioned two petitions filed by Sarvshri M.M. Singh and S.J. Pathak. The Division Bench castigated the department and awarded interest to the petitioners in the aforementioned cases on account of delayed payment. However, it was stipulated that the payment of interest has to be made by the official who had defaulted in the decision. In that regard, the order dated 23.2.1998 passed by the Division Bench may first be noticed and the same reads as under:

(3.) An additional reply was filed on 11.3.1998 taking the plea that the direction issued by the Supreme Court in Chander Sain's case (supra) were applicable only to that case as no general directions were issued to pay gratuity in respect of periods spent in private educational colleges before they were taken over. Rejecting the aforementioned plea, the Division Bench on 30.3.1998 observed as under: