- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred against an order passed by respondent no. 4 dated 27th August, 2002 at Annexure 17 to the memo of the present petition, whereby the respondents have denied granting B.A. trained scale to the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that initially the writ petition bearing C. W.J.C. No. 2178 of 1990 (R) was preferred by the petitioner for getting B.A. trained scale whereby it has been stated that all other juniors of the petitioner were given B.A. trained scale and, therefore, this Court had directed respondent no. 5 to decide the case of the present petitioner for getting B.A. trained scale. Thereafter, no decision was taken by the concerned respondent authorities and, therefore, another writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4299 of 1996 (R) was preferred by the petitioner and this Court had taken note of the lethargic approach of the concerned officer and pointed out that respondents have not taken care to read the earlier order. With these observations for the respondent officers, once again direction was given to respondent no. 5 to pass an order upon claim of the petitioner for getting B.A. trained scale. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that after this order a decision is taken in August, 2002 at Annexure 17 to the memo of the present petition that petitioner had not satisfactorily rendered his services and, therefore, he was not given B.A. trained scale. It is vehemently submitted by counsel for the petitioner that this is nothing, but, an after thought. In the reply of the earlier two petitions, never such ground was taken by the respondents. Counter affidavit was filed by respondent no. 4, but never this ground was agitated that services rendered by the petitioner was not upto the mark of satisfaction. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that as stated in para 30 of the petition, never any adverse remark has been communicated to the petitioner prior to his superannuation i.e. on 30th June, 2002. Thus, in the impugned order, the reason given is absolutely dehors the fact and record, just for the sake of giving reason, the same has been given without any evidence and without any background or support of the facts. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that despite the order passed by this Court dated 23rd September, 2003, no retirement benefits have been paid to the petitioner except pension and gratuity. Pension and gratuity are paid only after the order passed by this Court.
(3.) I have heard counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5, who has submitted that looking to the order at Annexure 17 to the memo of the present petition dated 27th August, 2002, if the services rendered by the petitioner are not satisfactory, then petitioner is not entitled for B.A. trained scale, which has been communicated by respondent no. 4 and, therefore, petitioner is not given B.A. trained scale and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.;