- (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 I.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.
(3.) 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 fee 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 Feb. 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 roughtly 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.;