Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Y.S. Lohit, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, while working on the post of Milk Supervisor, was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were started against him. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service. The said order of dismissal has been assailed by petitioner-Rajendra Kumar Srivastava in Writ Petition No. 1480 of 1991 (SS) and this Court, as an interim measure, vide order dated 15.4.1991, stayed the operation of the order of dismissal but inspite of that on one hand, opposite party No. 2 did not allow the petitioner-Rajendra Kumar Srivastava to join the duties and on the other hand, authorities have sought legal advice from the State Government and on the basis of the advice so tendered by the office of learned Chief standing Counsel, petitioner-Rajendra Kumar Srivastava was allowed to join but after six months i.e., in the month of July, 1991, as petitioner-Rajendra Kumar Srivastava attained 50 years, he was ordered for compulsory retired under Amended Fundamental Rule 56(C) by the order dated 30th September, 1991. Feeling aggrieved petitioner-Rajendra Kumar Srivastava has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6969 (SS) of 1991 and this Court, vide order dated 17.2.21992, stayed the operation of the order dated 30th September, 1991.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and has retired from service on 30.4.1997 (A..). After his retirement, opposite party No. 2 issued a show cause notice dated 5.9.1997, for recovering the amount of Rs. 49,809/- from the GPF account of the petitioner and in case any consent is not given by the petitioner within fifteen days, it would be deemed that the petitioner has no objection regarding recovery of the said amount from GPF account. The said notice was issued in furtherance of the order dated 26.5.1997 issued by the predecessor of opposite party No. 2, who was incharge at that time. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 754 (SS) of 1998 and this Court, vide order dated 23.2.1998, as an interim measure, directed the opposite parties to disposed of the representation of the petitioner dated 31st July, 1997.;