Arun Madan, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is an ex-teacher of the Education Department of the State and who last served as teacher at Gangapur city, District Sawaimadhopur from where he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, through the instant writ petition, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court wherein the following question of law of public importance arise for consideration of this Court (a) Whether the period spent by the Government teacher on Basic Teachers Training Course (for short B.T.T.C.) should not be considered for-the purpose of computation of service period as privilege (earned) leave with pay, being the period spent on duty on the basis of official sanction obtained from the competent authority? (b) If the aforesaid question is answered in affirmative, whether the competent authority would be justified in deducting the amount due to the petitioner which he has earned during the aforesaid training period as the period spent on official duty from the emoluments found due and admissible at the time of his retirement from service? (c) Whether the respondents would be justified in considering the said period as on leave without say just as had been done in this case causing substantial monetary loss to an employee who had in good faith with a view to improve his career prospects had attained the aforesaid qualifications which would also have been beneficial to the interest of the students? (d) Would it not be gross violation of the law of the land apart from violation of the principles of natural justice if the competent authority should be permitted to adopt such unreasonable attitude towards an employee in treating privilege leave duly sanctioned by the competent authority as leave without pay?
(2.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the unlawful attitude of the respondents in having treated the period of 305 days i.e. w.e.f. 1.7.1963 to 30.4.1964 as leave without pay which has consequently affected his pensionary benefits on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.9.1990, has approached this court by way of this writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order, dated 6.9.1955 of the District Education Officer, Sawaimadhopur (respondent No. 3) in the pay-scale of Rs.70-90/- per month against a clear-cut vacancy till further orders vide appointment order (Annexure-1). The service of the petitioner duly continued under different orders passed by competent authority and he was finally fixed in the regular pay scale of Rs.50- 80/- vide (Annexure 2) dated 23.1.1958.
(3.) It has further been contended by the petitioner that in the aforesaid manner ever since the date of his appointment, he dispensed his services in the different Government schools of the State till 30th September, 1990 i.e., when he retired on attaining superannuation having completed 35 of years of service. However, to the dismay of the petitioner, when the question arose for settlement of his consequential benefits, i.e., pension etc. difficulties were created by the respondents in not settling the dues of the petitioner which were lawfully admissible to him under the Rules, since instead of calculating the period of service actually rendered by him to the education department of the State, i.e., 35 years, the respondents had essentially calculated the same only as 30 years, 7 months and 11 days. The petitioner has further contended that under the orders dated 3.2.1964 of the Finance Department of the State Government and the order dated 7th March, 1964, the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale considering him to be appointed on 9.9.1955 and was given the annual grade increments from the said date.;