A. K. Yog, J. - (1.) -Heard Sri Ram Badan Dubey, petitioner (in person), and the learned standing counsel, Sri Abhinav Upadhyay, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner worked as Assistant Teacher in a recognized Educational Institution, called Agrasen Inter College, Allahabad, in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1954. He was given notice dated 11.2.1985 that he shall attain 60 years and superannuating on 30th June, 1985. Petitioner challenged said notice contending that he was entitled to continue in service up to June 30, 1986. It appears the aforesaid issue became the cause of dispute between the petitioner and the respondents (college management as well as educational authorities) as a result thereof petitioner filed Original Suit No. 331 of 1985 in the Court of Munsif for declaration that he was entitled to continue in service till June, 1986. Said suit was decreed with cost by the trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 25.2.1988 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) with the direction to pay all privileges/ arrears, etc. within 40 days and cost of Rs. 500. It appears the defendant judgment debtor filed time barred appeal along with an application to condone the delay. The appellate court rejected the application for condonation of delay, vide judgment and order dated January 27, 1990/Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Petitioner filed a representation/application before the concerned District Inspector of Schools dated 1.12.2000/Annexure-3 to the writ petition referring to the earlier registered letter sent in the month of January, 1998 and reminder dated February, 1998 for payment of balance of amount of pension and Group Insurance and claimed 18% interest on the delayed payment of pension of Rs. 1,56,693 which he received on 13.12.1997 and similarly interest on other amounts of delayed payment roughly for 11 and 1/2 years at the rate of 18% bank rate. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the Rs. 4,14,300 upon delayed payment of pension Group Insurance, Provident Fund amount @ 18% bank rate, which undisputedly were received by him after 11 and 1/2 years. In the said application, he also mentioned that some revisions were filed against order passed against the respondent and on that pretext he was denied payment. Petitioner also categorically contended that recourse was taken to litigation for denying lawful relief/claim of the petitioner in the matter and with that object in mind appeal/revisions were never filed in time and rather they were time barred only in order to find an excuse not to vindicate the rightful claim of the petitioner. Petitioner also mentioned that he and his wife/family members suffered because of obstinate approach of the department including the marriage of his daughter which remained pending for some years and the amount received from his provident fund was exhausted in repaying loans.
(3.) IT appears no action was taken by the departmental authorities hence petitioner was constrained to file present writ petition. Pleadings contained in the writ petition show that petitioner got his money on 13.12.1997 when decree in favour of the petitioner was put in execution and attachment proceedings were also initiated by the civil court. This goes to show that department did not honour the civil court decree, compelling the petitioner to put the same for execution and coercive measures taken when jeep belonging to the office of District Inspector of Schools was attached. In the instant case, stand taken by the petitioner is that he was to attain age of superannuation on June 30, 1986 and his stand was fully vindicated when ultimately upheld by the civil court vide judgment and decree referred to above. The stand taken by the department and the management of the college was not sustained. Against the trial court judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred which was dismissed as time barred. As the record stands, this litigation between the parties remained pending from the year 1985 to 1990. Once appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed in the year 1990, petitioner had to apply for the execution of the decree passed by the civil court. Attachment of the jeep of the office of the District Inspector of Schools, probably and court presumes, precipitated payment of a sum of Rs. 2,56,693 on 13.12.1997 (as also mentioned in the computation sheet filed along with supplementary counter-affidavit sworn by Sri Ganesh Kumar dated 28.8.2002.;