- (1.) Appellant retired from the post of Assistant Teacher on 30.06.1994 and he preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27066 of 1993 before this Court praying for following relief. (i) to issue a writ of order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to correctly make the fixation of the petitioner in the L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1996 treating the petitioner to be in the selection C.T. grade w.e.f. 1.9.1980 and pay the entire arrears of salary for which the petitioner is entitled to be paid under law. (ii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to treat the petitioner in C.T. Grade since 1.9.1964 and count the period from 1964 in the C.T. Grade service of the petitioner and grant him selection grade w.e.f. 1.9.1980 on account of his having completed 16 years of service in the C.T. Grade. (iii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to calculate the post retiral benefits of the petitioner on the basis of his service from 7.8.1963 to 30.6.1994 and to pay the same with arrears and interest and to refix his pension on the basis of his service from 7.8.1963 to 30.6.1994 and further to pay the difference of pension and other post retiral benefits to the petitioner. (iv) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay the leave encashment and the difference of the C.T. pay-scale for the period from 17.7.1973 to 31.10.1976. (v) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the arrears of the L.T. Grade for the period from 1.11.1976 to 1.1.1986 and the arrears of selection grade of L.T. Grade for the period from 1.1.1986 to 30.6.1994 of Rs. 48,255/- and further to pay the medical leave arrears of Rs. 7061/- to the petitioner. (vi) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the difference of arrears of the gratuity for the period from 7.8.1963 to 30.6.1994 and the period for which the gratuity has been paid i.e. from 17.7.1973 to 30.6.1994.
(2.) Learned single Judge of this Court partly allowed the writ petition, granting arrears of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 01.11.1976 to 01.01.1986, as well as Rs. 7161/- towards medical leave encashment. Aggrieved petitioner/appellant preferred Special Appeal No. 2127 of 2012 and same has been dismissed.
(3.) Against the said order passed by the Special Appeal Bench, Civil Appeal (S) No. 2105 of 2015 had been preferred before the Apex Court and Apex Court in its turn on 20.02.2015 has proceeded to pass following order: "When the matter initially came up before us for preliminary hearing on 20th January, 2014, learned counsel for the appellant submitted, on instruction, that the appellant sought to pursue the present proceedings limited to para (iii) of the prayer, extracted earlier. We have accordingly issue notice to the respondents-state limited to that prayer." Having hear learned counsel for the parties at some length we are of the view that the prayer made by the appellant in para (iii) for a mandmus directing the respondents to calculate the post retiral benefits of the appellant on the basis of his service from 07.08.1963 to 30.06.1994 and to pay the arrears based on the same and also to refix his pension, could have been ignored or declined on the ground that the said prayer sought to agitate stale claim. That is because the writ petition itself was filed in the year 1993 i.e. much before the date of retirement of the appellant. One could understand if the appellant came to the court long against his retirement. But that was not the position in the case at hand. We, therefore, find it difficult to support the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court that the claim was stale or the grievance belated. Having said that, we do not purpose to go into the validity of the claim itself. That is a matter which we leave to the High Court to determine. We are also of the view that since the appellant has retired as early as in the year 1994 and is fairly old, instead of remanding the matter back to the single Judge it would be more appropriate to request the Division Bench of the High Court to examine prayer (iii), reproduced above, on its merit. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and remit the matter back to the Division Bench of the High Court to examine the claim made by the appellant, limited to prayer (iii) extracted above. The High Court is also requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal on merits as early as possible preferably within six months from the date a copy of this order is received by it. No. Costs.;