D.S.Sinha - (1.) REQUISITE affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, though the petition has not been admitted formally.
(2.) SHRI Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and SHRI R. C. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, Jointly pray and agree that the petition may be disposed of finally. Accordingly, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, at length and in detail, the Court proceeds to dispose of the petition. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a retired District Survey Officer of the department of Basic Education of the State of Uttar Pradesh, seeks to challenge the legality of the order dated 28th April, 1995 (Annexure-6 to the petition) and prays for quashing thereof. The further prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents may be commanded to pay the entire amount of gratuity payable to him alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum, apart from payment of the full pension. The impugned order purports to direct deduction of the monthly pension of the petitioner by 25% permanently.
(3.) UNDISPUTED and relevant facts emerging from the pleadings contained in the petition are these : The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools in the said education service of the State in the year 1958. In 1984, he was promoted as District Basic Education Officer. Later, in the year 1988, he was promoted to the post of District Survey Officer from which post he retired on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30th June, 1988. During the period between 1st July, 1988 and 30th June, 1989, he was paid provisional pension. Thereafter the payment of provisional pension was stopped which led the petitioner to file a writ petition in this Court. The petition was disposed of by the Court finally vide its order and judgment dated 7th September, 1992 directing the disposal of the representation of the petitioner raising grievance about the non-payment of the pension.;