MOHIBULLAH USMANBHAI SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs in this petition substantively :-

(2.) The petitioner was in the first instance compulsorily retired by order dated 17/1/92 w.e.f. forenoon of 18/1/92 with three months notice pay. The State Government on petitioner's representation reinstated the petitioner by order dated 4/1/94. This order also mentioned that, during this period, the petitioner has been paid notice pay pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. For the recovery of the said amount alongwith for regularising the period during which the compulsory retirement order remained in force, a separate order shall be made. As according to the petitioner, the respondents were not entitled to recover the retiral benefits given in pursuance of order dated 17/1/92 and this would have been resulted in huge recovery on joining, he did not join his duties on reinstatement immediately, but ultimately joined only on 30/1/95. On 31/1/95, he superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. During the period, until December 1996, the petitioner continued to draw the pension fixed under the compulsory retirement order dated 17/1/92. He has also withdrawn `death cum retirement gratuity' as well as the commuted pension as per rules of fixation on pension as a result compulsory retirement in 1992. As the petitioner ultimately retired on 1/2/1995 and he was already drawing pension fixed under 1992 and the question of adjustment of amount paid as retiral benefits during the continuance of his service until 31/1/95 was pending consideration, particularly for the reason that no order could be passed for treatment of the period during first retirement because of non-joining by the petitioner until a day before his superannuation, the question of treating this absence from duty was also to be considered. In the first instance, therefore, an order was made on 30/5/96 by treating the entire period of absence from duty from 19/1/92 to 21/5/95 as under :- @@@[1] From 19/6/92 to 4/1/94 - total 717 days :: Leave without pay. [2] From 5/1/94 to 30/5/94 - 146 days :: Earned leave with full pay from his balance of leave. [3] 31/5/94 to 29/1/95 - 244 days :: Against half pay leave due to the petitioner.

(3.) Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner represented with the respondents and the fresh order came to be made on 4/11/96 by considering the entire period from 19/1/92 to 4/1/94 [during which order dated 17/1/92 remained operative], as on duty with entitlement of full pay and allowance, from 5/1/94 to 9/8/94 - 217 days, against the earned leave in balance with full pay. The total balance of earned leave to the credit of the petitioner's account as on the date of retirement was 217 days. Thus, entire leave balance was adjusted against the absence period from 5/1/94 to 9/8/94 and the remainder of the period of absence from 10/8/94 to 29/1/95 - 173 days were adjusted against grant of half pay leave account which was then showing 217 days to his credit. It was further ordered that, from the aforesaid grant of leave, the amount of pension paid during 19/1/92 to 29/1/95 amounts to Rs.45,505.00 as well as notice pay for three months is to be adjusted. Thus, a total of Rs.53,592.00 on account of pension paid to the petitioner with three months notice pay was ordered to be adjusted against the emoluments payable until the date of superannuation to which the petitioner became entitled as a result of regularisation of entire period of absence from duty.