DR. RATAN LAL MATHUR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Appeal (Writ) is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of 27.1.1995 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4457/1993.

(2.) The petitioner Dr. R.I. Mathur had been working us a Professor of Radio Therapy in the Medical Colleges at Jaipur, Ajmer, Udaipur and Jodhpur and after rendering service of 27 years, had sought voluntary retirement on 15.12.1997. At the time of seeking such voluntary retirement he was posted at .Jodhpur in Dr. Sampuranand Medical College. Despite his having been retired. he had not been paid the Pension, Gratuity, Government Provident Fund Amount and State Insurance refund, After meeting with failures of getting any response. when he had tiled number of representations and reminders. and after having issued a, Notice for Demand of Justice, the petitioner ultimately approached this Court by filling this Writ petition bearing number as S.B. (Ml Writ Petition No. 4457/1993 with a prayer to issue suitable writ order or direction to the Government for release of the retiral benefits.

(3.) Reply had been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and No.3. It has been stated in the reply that the appellant - petitioner was asked to furnish certain information as per Annex R/1 - 3/1 for preparing the pension case on 18.1.1993 and an information was supplied on 4.2.1993. It is stated that certain information was not complete and therefore, on 28th April 1993. he was asked to complete the information with regard to car loan etc. It is not understood as to how the information supplied by the petitioner was not complete. The petitioner had given all the details to the effect that the building loan of Rs. 300.00 granted to him at Jaipur. in the year 1981) had since been repaid. He had also elver tile. details of the car loan. The respondents themselves have attached a letter Annex. R/1 - 3/7 dated 23rd Sept. 1993 wherein the Principal and Controller had himself admitted while sending communication to the Director, Pension Department to the effect that out of the car loan, only Rs. 300.00 were remained to be recovered and the house building loan advanced to the petitioner had since been repaid by the petitioner. Apart from above, it is stated in the above said letter that an amount of Rs. 17, 181/- towards the salary is to be recovered. It is not denied that such excess salary paid to the petitioner stands already adjusted.