- (1.) Delay condoned in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22787 of 2002.
(2.) Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions. This bunch of appeals involve common questions of fact and law and as such they are being disposed of by this common judgment. We have heard Dr.R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, learned senior counsel Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Mr.Shakil Ahmed Syed, Mr.Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Mr.Girdhar G. Upadhyay, Mr.Rameshwar Prasad Goyal and Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for different appellants/respondents.
(3.) We may briefly notice the facts of each case. Respondent in C.A.No.7318 of 2003 was appointed as Co-operative Supervisor, which is a non-government post on 1.02.1959. He was confirmed in the post on 30.04.1972. He was promoted to the post of Co-operative Inspector Grade II vide order dated 15.5.1985. Under Rule 5 of the Subordinate Co-operative Service Rules, 1979 the promotion to the post of Co-operative Inspector Grade II is either by direct recruitment or by promotion through the State Public Service Commission. He retired from service on 31.07.1989 as Co-operative Inspector Grade II. In 1993, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal inter alia claiming that the period of his service rendered as Co-operative Supervisor be reckoned for the purpose of gratuity, leave encashment, family pension and other retiral benefits. The Tribunal by an order dated 17.8.1994 allowed the claim and directed that the period from 1.2.1959 to 31.7.1989 be reckoned towards the respondent's total length of service for the purpose of determining family pension and gratuity. The Tribunal further directed that the respondent would also be entitled to arrears of pension and gratuity. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned order of the High Court. Hence the present appeal.;