D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has retired from the services of the respondents w.e.f. 31 May, 2005. Two fold prayers have been made in this writ petition, for getting retirement benefits like: (a) Difference in salary because of increase in pay scale; (b) Gratuity; (c) Two months salary; (d) Earned Leave; and (e) Amount towards repairing of the godown and; second relief is to the effect that the petitioner was serving with respondent No. 3 and the age of the retirement was wrongly calculated by respondent No. 3, on the contrary, it ought to have been 60 years, as per the rules, regulations and the decision rendered by this Court and therefore, the services of the petitioner ought to have been notionally extended by this Court to two years and the petitioner will be given all monetary benefits, for those two years services.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who has submitted that the difference in salary, gratuity, two months salary, earned leave amounts and repairing amount towards godown etc. shall be paid to the petitioner, after proper check of the dues and the amount legally payable to the petitioner and after considering the amount, which is to be received by the present respondents, from the petitioner. To this suggestion, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has no objection, but, it is insisted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents must complete this process of calculation of the amount under different heads, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the grant of benefit of the two years of extension of services and he has submitted that the law helps those who are vigilant. The petitioner has retired on 31 May, 2005, and he has filed this writ petition much after his retirement i.e. on 27th June, 2008 and now therefore, he may not be given any benefit of extension of two years services on the basis of age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years and has relied upon the decision rendered by. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Anr. as reported in : 2006 (11) SCC 464, especially in paragraph 13 thereof, and has been submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of extension of services and much less, for any monetary benefit for those two years. Moreover, he has not worked, at all, for those two years with the respondents.;