PANDEY DAYANAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner has claimed retirement benefits by filing the present writ petition in the year 2004 with the assertion that he has retired on 09.05.1991 and his post. retirement dues have remained unpaid.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the service of Department of Education on 08.05.1954 and worked as a clerk till 01.04.1960. Thereafter, on 02.04.2960 he was elevated as Sub-Inspector of Schools and was posted as In-charge Ranchi Municipal Area till 17.02.1977. He, thereafter, proceeded on leave due to compelling reason of frequent attack of chronic Asthma. On 21.05.1977, he dispatched n letter to the Director Education expressing his desire to retire from service voluntarily or accept his resignation with effect from 17.02.1977 and also to pay all his legal dues including pension. As per the petitioner, he had remained in service till that date i.e. 17.02.1977 for a period of 22 years 9 months and 9 days and was entitled to pensionary benefits. The petitioner was never informed of any decision in relation to the acceptance of his VRS/resignation by the respondents. After attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.1991, he has submitted his pension papers before the respondent District Superintend of Education, Ranchi, but despite several representations as contained as Annexure-1, the respondents have not redressed his grievances. It is submitted that the correspondence has taken place amongst the respondents in relation to the claim of the petitioner, but still nothing has been done.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents-State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer of the petitioner by relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit. He submits that petitioner admittedly himself left the service since February, 1977. He has not annexed any such documents in the nature of an application for seeking voluntarily retirements or resignation as claimed by him in the writ petition. Moreover, no scheme of voluntarily retirement had been in force at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that according to the petitioner himself, he has reached the age of superannuation in the year 1991 and has approached this Court in the year 2004 after gross delay. In such circumstances, the petitioner should not be granted any relief. Moreover, no records in relation to the petitioner's services have been found upon inquiry by the Director, Primary Education, as per letter dated 05.12.2003, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on records. The claim of the petitioner is that he left service after giving an application seeking voluntarily retirement or in the alternative to accept his resignation on 21.05.1977. However, no such application or documents has been annexed to the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner remained out of service since 1977 till he had reached the age of retirement in the year 1991. Even thereafter, he waited till 2004 to prefer this writ petition. However, with regard to the claim for post retirement benefits, the respondents undertook an inquiry to ascertain the claim of the petitioner, but no records in respect of the petitioner's services have been found to be available in the office of the respondent-Director, Primary Education. The matter is, therefore, absolutely state and barred by gross delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, thus Court is not inclined to interfere in its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction in the present writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.