DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION, SECTOR 9, CHANDIGARH. Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Director Higher Education, Chandigarh Administration, Sector 9, Chandigarh has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by challenging the order dated 3.3.2017 (Annexure P-1) rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short "CAT"), whereby O.A.No.060/00595/2016 preferred by respondent No.2, seeking following relief, has been allowed.

(2.) Mr.J.S.Toor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 worked as Lecturer in French in Government College for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh on temporary basis w.e.f. 30.8.1966 to 29.3.1967 (212 days). She again worked as Temporary Lecturer in French from 18.7.1967 to 5.4.1968 (263 days) and from 27.7.1968 to 19.9.1969 (420 days). Respondent No.2 was appointed as a Lecturer in French on regular basis w.e.f. 20.9.1969 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2002 after rendering 34 years of service. Respondent No.2 availed leave from 1971 to 1974 for pursuing M.A.in French from U.S.A., the details of which are given below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_345_LAWS(P&H)12_2017_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The Extra Ordinary Leave availed by respondent No.2 was excluded while counting the pensionary benefits and the total qualifying service was found to be of 30 years 06 months and 26 days. The leave aforementioned was granted as Extra Ordinary Leave and for that, a bond of Rs. 19,500/- was executed by respondent No.2. In the year 2005, respondent No.2 filed a Civil Suit bearing No.257 of 2005 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh claiming pension at the rate of Rs. 8940/- as against the amount of Rs. 8263/-. The aforementioned civil suit was transferred to the CAT and registered as TA No.106/CH/2009. The CAT, vide order dated 31.3.2010, disposed of the matter by issuing directions to the respondents therein to re-consider the case of respondent No.2.