[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9373 of 2015 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8562 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY]
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the [ACT] NO or any order made thereunder ?
[ENTITY] Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 2 Respondent(s) Appearance:
S.C.A. NO.9373 OF 2015:
[ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 S.C.A. NO.8562 OF 2015:
[ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 HC-NIC Page 1 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No.2 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Respondent No.3 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 15/09/2016 CAV COMMON JUDGMENT 1 Since the issues raised in both the captioned petitions are interrelated,thosewereheardanalogouslyandarebeingdisposedofby thiscommonjudgmentandorder.
2 [CASE NUMBER] underArticle227oftheConstitution ofIndia,callinginquestionthe legalityandvalidityoftheorderdated27th March2015passedbythe GujaratEducationalInstitutionServicesTribunalatAhmedabadinnew [CASE NUMBER].
3 Thecaseofthepetitionermaybesummarisedasunder: 3.1 The petitioner was appointed as an 'Assistant Teacher' in the respondent - School from 1st July 1993. The school management terminatedtheservicesofthepetitionerwitheffectfrom30thApril1998.
The petitioner challenged the action of the management by filing an application being the application No.69 of 1998 before the Gujarat Primary Educational Tribunal and prayed for reinstatement and back wages.TheTribunal,videorderdated21st January2006,allowedthe applicationandthemanagementwasdirectedtoreinstatethepetitioner withbackwages.
HC-NIC Page 2 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 3.2 The management, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal, preferred the [CASE NUMBER]. The said petition was ordered to be rejected by a learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 13th November 2008.
3.3 Themanagementbeingdissatisfiedwiththejudgmentandorder passedbythelearnedSingleJudgerejectingtheapplication,preferred the [CASE NUMBER]. The said Letters Patent Appeal cametobedismissedvidejudgmentandorderdated26th July 2012. The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, filed by the management,recordedthefollowing:
"6. For the reasons recorded above, we arrive at the judgment, and passtheorder,asunder.
(i) TheGujaratPrimaryEducationTribunal,hasnotcommittedany error, in coming to the conclusion that the action of the school management, ofterminating the service ofthe respondent teacher, vide orderdated30.4.1998wasillegal.Wefindnoerrorinthejudgmentand consequential order passed by the Tribunal dated 21.1.2006 in ApplicationNo:69of1998.
(ii) Learnedsinglejudgehasalsonotcommittedanyerror,muchless anyerrorapparentonthefaceofrecord,bynotinterferingintheabove referredjudgmentandorderdated21.1.2006passedbytheTribunal.
(iii) The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. Interim stay grantedearlier,standsvacated.
(iv) The appellant school management is directed to implement the orderpassedbytheGujaratPrimaryEducationTribunaldated21.1.2006, [CASE NUMBER].
(v) Atthisstage,learnedcounselfortheappellantschoolmanagement has requested that the above direction, to implement the order of the tribunal,besuspendedforaperiodofsixweeks.Therequestisaccepted anditisorderedthat,thedirectioncontainedinthisorder,toimplement theorderoftheGujaratPrimaryEducationTribunaldated21.1.2006,in Application No: 69 of 1998, shall stand suspended for a period of six HC-NIC Page 3 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 weeksfromtoday."
3.4 The management being dissatisfied with the dismissal of the LettersPatentAppeal,[CASE NUMBER] SupremeCourt.TheSupremeCourtvidejudgmentandorderdated14th September2012dismissedtheappealobservingasunder:
"21. [ENTITY] alleging his own infamy cannot be heard atany forum, whattotalkofaWritCourt,asexplainedbythelegalmaxim 'allegans suamturpitudinemnonestaudiendus'.Ifapartyhascommittedawrong, hecannotbepermittedtotakethebenefitofhisownwrong.(Vide:G.S. Lamba&Ors.v.Union ofIndia&Ors.,AIR1985 SC1019; [PRECEDENT].
Thisconceptisalsoexplainedbythelegalmaxims'Commodumex injuriasuanemohaberedebet';and'nulluscommodumcaperepotestde injuriasuapropria'. (Seealso: [PRECEDENT].
22.Thus,itisevidentthattheappellanthasactedwithmalicealongwith respondentandheldthatitwasnotmerelyacaseofdiscriminationrather it is a clear case of victimisation of respondent No.1 by School Managementforraisinghisvoiceagainstexploitation.
23. After going through the material on record and considering the submissionsmadebylearnedcounselfortheappellantandtherespondent No.1inperson,wedonotfindanycogentreasonwhatsoevertointerfere withtheaforesaidfindingsoffact.
[ENTITY],accordingly,dismissed."
3.5 Itappearsthatuponreinstatementinservice,therespondent management thought fit to take into review the work put in by the petitionerforthepurposeofascertainingwhetherthepetitionershould be continued in service or he should be made to compulsorily retire underRule34oftheBombayPrimaryEducationRules,1949.
HC-NIC Page 4 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 3.6 ACommitteewasconstitutedforthepurposeofevaluationofthe work, and the Committee, in its report, recommended compulsory retirement.
3.7 Accordingly,videorderdated22ndNovember2013,thepetitioner wasmadetoretirecompulsorilybypayinghimthreemonthssalary.
3.8 The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order of compulsory retirement passed by the management, challenged the same by filing [CASE NUMBER] before the Gujarat Educational Institution Services Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal, vide judgmentandorderdated27th March2015,dismissedtheappealfiled bythepetitioner.
3.9 Beingdissatisfied,thepetitionerhascomeupwiththisapplication underArticle227oftheConstitutionofIndiainvokingthesupervisory jurisdictionofthisCourt.
3 On23rdNovember2015,thefollowingorderwaspassed:
"Requestofthepartyinpersonisdeclinedtorepresenthiscasein person,since hedoesnotfallwithinthecriteriawhichhasbeensetup undertheHighCourtrules.TheHighCourtLegalServicesCommitteehas not permitted him to appear as partyinperson on account of his ineligibilitytoappearandhasprovidedhimfreelegalaidinwhichlearned advocateMr.[ENTITY]presentlyappearsforthepetitioner.
Today, the partyinperson is specifically directed not to make submission.Sincehehasalreadybeenrepresentedbylearnedadvocate.All hissubmissionsshallbemadebythelearnedadvocaterepresentinghim. Mr.[ENTITY],learnedadvocateappearingforthepetitionerifrequiresany documentsfromthepartyinperson,thesameshallbeaskedthroughthe High Court Legal Services Committee which shall bear the expenses of copies etc. without insisting on the same to be made by the partyin person.
HC-NIC Page 5 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 Mr.[ENTITY], learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.1and2atthisstageseeksoneweek'stimetofilehisreply.Replyifany to be filed on or before 1st December, 2015. Copy of which shall be furnished tothelearned advocate Mr.[ENTITY]. Rejoinder, ifany, tobe filedonorbefore3rdDecember,2015.
Oncompletionofpleadings,mattershallproceedon3rdDecember, 2015."
4 Onbehalfofthemanagement,anaffidavitinreplyhasbeenfiled interaliastatingasunder:
"3 [ACT]
Isayandsubmitthatthepetitionerhasbeencompulsorilyretired underRule34ofscheduleFofBombayPrimaryEducationRules,1949 whichprovidesforcontinuanceoftheservicesofateacherbeyondtheage of55yearssubjecttoreview,evaluationanddiscretionoftheschool.For readyreferencerule34(1)ofscheduleFisreproducedasunder:
"34. Ageofsuperannuationofteachers-(1)Anemployee shallretireattheageof58years.Howeverreviewofthework willbeundertakeattheageof55yearsdecidingwhetherhe deservestobecontinuedbeyondtheageof55."
Isayandverilysubmitthatpetitionersserviceswereevaluatedby constituting an independent committee of [ENTITY], and [ENTITY] (Principal. The principal of the school while independentlyreviewingtheservicesofthepetitionerandalsoconcurring with the report of the evaluation committee constituted of [ENTITY] Seva Samaj Trust, which upon being accepted has resulted into compulsory retirement ofthe petitioner byorder dated 22/11/2013 by payinghim3monthssalarywhichhasbeenacceptedbyhim.Thecopyof final report dated 20/11/2013 submitted by the principal of school - respondent2torespondent1isannexedandmarkedwithasAnnexure R1. The copy of order dated 22/11/2013 compulsorily retiring the petitionerhereinfromtheservicesasteacherisannexedandmarkedwith asAnnexureR2.
4. [ENTITY]
HC-NIC Page 6 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 I. 22/9/2012-Petitionerintimidatedschoolauthoritiesandbehaved in a rude and insolent manner with the principal, teacher and office bearersofthetrust.Therespondent2immediatelyissuedaletterannexed asAnnexureR3on22/9/2012informingofhissuchmisconductandbad behaviour.
II. [ENTITY] - Respondent 2 - school intimated petitioner that despitespecificinstructiontoremainpresenton[ENTITY]toeffecthis reinstatement he has wilfully with respondent 2 to remain absent. The petitioner did not cooperate with respondent 2 in carrying out reinstatementaspertheordersofthehonourablecourtandvariousletters came to be should thereafter on 25/9/2012, 27/9/2012, 8/10/2012, 10/10/2012, 13/10/2012. Itissubmittedthatitwasonlypursuantto appointmentofspecialofficeronbehalfofmunicipalboardthatpetitioner couldbewithgreatdifficultyreinstatedinserviceon16/3/2013 inthe presence ofspecialofficerFalguniben Trivedi.Thecopyofsaidletters is annexedandmarkedwithasAnnexureR4.
III.Continuousandwilfulabsenceafterreinstatement:
Thatpursuant toreinstatement on16/3/2013 thepetitioner did not remain present to perform his services till 21/3/2013 whereafter respondent2addressedtheletteron21/3/2013toadministrativeofficer informingofthesame.Thereafterpetitionerresumedhisservicesfromthe newsessionon10/6/2013butrefusedtosignmusterroll.Thereafteron numerous occasions the petitioner on 15/6/2013 had left the school premisesduringschoolhourswithoutintimatingtheschoolauthoritiesor seekinganyleave.Thesamewasintimatedbytheschoolauthorityvide letter dated 17/4/2013 and on the same day petitioners offensive and abusive conductintheoffice oftheschoolwasalsovideographed. That similarly petitioner remained absent on 14/6/2013, 17/6/2013 and 24/6/2013withoutintimatingtheschoolauthoritiesorseekinganyleave. The copy of various letters written by the school to the petitioner is annexedandmarkedwithasAnnexureR5.
IV. VARIOUSCOMPLAINTSRECEIVEDFROMPARENTS:
I say and verily submit that respondent 2 has received various complaintsfromtheparentsofstudentspertainingtothemethod,conduct andstyleofteachingadoptedbythepetitioner.Theparentshavealleged thatstudentsarebeingaskedtoteachotherstudentsbypetitioner,andhe isnotperforminghisdutyasteacheroftheschoolanditwasalsofurther alleged by some of the parents that petitioner has appointed certain leaders wherein students are appointed to check homework of other students posing considerable consternation and disappointment amidst HC-NIC Page 7 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 parents and student fraternity. The various letters received from the parentsareannexedandmarkedwithasAnnexureR6.
V.AppointmentofEvaluationOfficer:
Isayandsubmitthattheprincipaloftheschoolvideletterdated 9/10/2013appointedMamtabenBarottolookintothecomplaintsofthe parentsagainstpetitionerandprepareareporttothesaideffect.Thatthe said officer appointed by the school had personal discussion with the parents of the students and the students, to look into the nature of grievance and complaints against the petitioner. That [ENTITY] thereafterpreparedreportintermsofletterdated9/10/2013whereinit was shockingly revealed that petitioner is not performing his duties of teachingbuthasbeenaskingstudentstoteachotherstudents.Thatthe petitionerappointedteachleaderandthatitwasafunctionanddutyof theteamleadertocarryoutthejobofteaching.Itwasfurtherintimated andreportedtotheschoolauthoritiesthatpetitionerwasnotsatisfactorily carryingouthisresponsibilitiesofteaching. The petitionerdidnoteven check the homework given byhim and appointed team leader tocheck homework of other students. The copy of letter dated 9/10/2013 and report their under dated 14/10/2013 is annexed and marked with as AnnexureR7.
VI.Irregularitiesinallocationofmarksandcheckingpapers:
Isayandsubmitthatgraveanddiscouragingirregularitiescameto the forefront when the marks sheets of mathematics, science and environment were again reevaluated by appointing separate teachers, wherein itwas discovered thatinmany cases even though the answers were correct, they were marked as incorrect answer and in some less markswereawardedtostudentsthantheywouldhavebeenentitledto. That such a conduct of the petitioner seriously affected the prospect of manystudents, whowerenotonlydiscouraged withtheresultbuthad deleterious effect on their outlook towards certain subjects and their capabilities. Therefore the petitioners presence as teacher has head to introductionofdespicablemethodsofteachingtothestudentsandyoung mindswhichwascounterproductivetotheinstitutionandthefutureof thestudents.Theletterdated6/1/2013wasalsoreceivedfromstatutory body - Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samity directing the school to take appropriatestepsasrightofstudentsundertheRighttoEducationAct, 2009 has been tempered with. That it was in this background that a committeecametobeappointedbyletterdated13/11/2013 fortaking [ACT] The copy of report dated 25/10/2013 and HC-NIC Page 8 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 26/10/2013pertainingtoreevaluationofmarkssheetsisannexedand markedwithasAnnexureR8.Thecopyofletterdated6/11/2013from statutorybodyisannexedandmarkedwithasAnnexureR9.
VII.Evaluationreportsoughtbyletterdated13/11/2013:
Isayand submit that respondent sought evaluation report from [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] for the purpose of reviewing the performance of petitioner so as to consider continuation of his services aftertheageof55under[SECTION]F.Thecopyofletterdated 13/11/2013isannexedandmarkedwithasAnnexureR10.Thatreport from both the aforesaid officers was received on 16/11/2013 which is annexedandmarkedwithasAnnexureR11.
VIII.Independentreportbystatutoryauthority:
IsayandsubmitthattheNagarPrathmikShikshanSamitiwhich is a statutory body under [ACT] also appointed its independent officer [ENTITY] vide letter dated 25/10/2013pertainingtotheirregularitiesandtheconductofpetitioner herein.ThatKalyansinhRathvabywayofanindependent reportdated 28/10/2013 submitted to the statutory authority stating that continuationofthepetitioneriscausinggravedisservicetothefutureof studentsandfurtherinfringestheirrightsundertheRighttoEducation Act,2009.Thatthestatutorybodyfurtherdirectedrespondent2totake appropriate steps in the matter as per [SECTION] of [ACT]
Isayandsubmitthatpetitionershasbeenservedwithacopyof order dated 23/11/2013 and 22/11/2013 and has been retired from service compulsoryinexercise ofpowers under [SECTION] Fof BombayPrimaryEducationRules,1949pursuanttopaymentof3months salary."
5 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee and also the learnedcounselappearingfortherespondentmanagementandtaking intoconsiderationthematerialsonrecord,theonlyquestionthatfalls for myconsideration is whether the Tribunal committed any error in passingtheimpugnedorder.
HC-NIC Page 9 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 6 ADivisionBenchofthisCourtinthecaseofN.P.Mehtavs.State ofGujarat[SpecialCivilApplicationNo.8483of2010decidedon7th October 2010] has explained the position of law so far as the compulsoryretirementinpublicinterestisconcerned.Theobservations madeinparas7to9andpara12arerelevant.Thesameareelicitedas under:
"[ENTITY].VPSheth,reportedinAIR1994SC 1261,theSupremeCourtwhilenoticedtherequirementofcommunication ofadverseremarks,heldthatthat'uncommunicatedadverseremarks'can certainly be considered for exercise of power of compulsory retirement. AforesaiddecisionwasbasedonearlierdecisionsoftheSupremeCourtin [PRECEDENT], reportedin1992(2)SCC299and Posts&TelegraphsBoardvs.CSN Murthy,reportedin(1992)2SCC317.Havingnoticedtheprincipleslaid down,theSupremeCourtjotteddownthesameatoneplaceinthecaseof UnionofIndiavs.VPSheth[supra],andobservedasfollows:
2 ,thisCourtevolvedthefollowingprinciples:
(i)Anorderofcompulsoryretirementisnotapunishment.It impliesnostigmanoranysuggestionofmisbehaviour.
(ii)Theorderhastobepassedbythegovernmentonforming theopinionthatitisinthepublicinteresttoretire a governmentservantcompulsorily.Theorderispassedon thesubjectivesatisfactionofthegovernment.
(iii)Principlesofnaturaljusticehavenoplaceinthecontextof anorderofcompulsoryretirement.Thisdoesnotmean thatjudicialscrutinyisexcluded altogether. While the HighCourtorthisCourtwouldnotexaminethematter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied thattheorder ispassed (a)malafideor(b) thatitisbasedonnoevidenceor(c)thatitisarbitrary inthesensethatnoreasonablepersonwouldformthe requisiteopiniononthegivenmaterial;inshort:ifitis foundtobeaperverseorder.
(iv)The government (or theReview Committee, asthecame may be) shall have to consider the entire record of servicebeforetakingadecisioninthematterofcourse HC-NIC Page 10 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 attaching more importance to record of and performanceduringthelateryears.Therecordtobeso considered would naturally include the entries in the confidentialrecords/characterrolls,bothfavourableand adverse,ifagovernmentservantispromotedtoahigher postnotwithstandingtheadverseremarks,suchremarks losttheirsting,moreso,ifthepromotionisbasedupon merit(selection)andnotuponseniority.
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashedbyaCourtmerelyontheshowingthatwhile passing ituncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannotbeabasisforinterference.
Thus,itwillbeevidentthattheorderofcompulsoryretirementis not a punishment; it implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviourand,therefore,thequestionofissuinganyshowcausenotice inthematterofretirementinthepublicinterestdoesnotarise.Similarly, uncommunicatedadverseremarkscanbenoticedforretiringanofficerin thepublicinterest.
[PRECEDENT] [supra],theSupremeCourtconsideredtheFundamentalRule 56(j) and Rule corresponding to it and observed that the object and purposesforexerciseofsuchpowersarewellstatedinUnionofIndiavs. Col.[ENTITY],reportedin1970(2)SCC458andotherdecisionsreferred tobytheSupremeCourtandheldasfollows:
34.Thefollowingprinciplesemergefromtheabovediscussion:
i. Anorderofcompulsoryretirementisnotapunishment.It impliesnostigmanoranysuggestionofmisbehaviour.
ii. Theorderhastobepassedbythegovernmentonforming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a governmentservantcompulsorily.Theorderispassedonthe subjectivesatisfactionofthegovernment.
iii.Principlesofnaturaljusticehavenoplaceinthecontextof anorderofcompulsoryretirement.Thisdoesnotmeanthat judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or thisCourt would not examine the matter asan appellatecourt,theymayinterfereiftheyaresatisfiedthat theorderispassed(a)malafideor(b)thatitisbasedon noevidenceor(c)thatitisarbitraryinthesensethatno reasonablepersonwouldformtherequisiteopiniononthe HC-NIC Page 11 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 givenmaterial;inshort,ifitisfoundtobeaperverseorder.
iv. Thegovernment(orthereviewcommittee,asthecasemay be)shallhavetoconsidertheentirerecordofservicebefore taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of an performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls,bothfavourableandadverse.Ifagovernmentservant ispromoted to ahigher postnotwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.
v. An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a court merely on the showing that while passingituncoomunicatedadverseremarkswerealsotaken intoconsideration.Thatcircumstancebyitselfcannotbea basisforinterference.
9.TheaforesaiddecisionswerereiteratedinthecaseofNawalSinghvs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in [PRECEDENT]. From the aforesaidjudgment,itwillbeevidentthattheprinciplesofnaturaljustice havenoplaceinthecontextofanorderofcompulsoryretirement,though judicialscrutinyispermissiblebytheHighCourtortheSupremeCourt. However, in such case, while the High Court would not examine the matter asanappellate Court, itmayinterfere ifitissatisfied thatthe orderispassed(a)malafideor(b)notbasedevidenceor(c)isarbitrary inasensethatnoreasonablepersonwouldformtherequisiteopinionon thegivenmaterial."
"12. It is a settled law that this Court under [SECTION] of the Constitutioncannotsitinappeal.Itcaninterfereifitissatisfiedthatthe orderispassedmalafideornotbasedonanyevidenceorisarbitraryina sensethatanyreasonablepersonwouldnotformtherequisiteopinionon the given material. In the present case, apart from the fact that the performance of the petitioner was poor, we find that the order of retirement has been passed on the basis of record of service, any reasonable person would form only one opinion that the officer is a burdenonjudiciaryandnotfittoberetainedinservice.Forthereasons aforesaid, no interference is called. In absence of any merit, the writ petitionisdismissed.Nocosts."
7 TheTribunal,whiledismissingtheappealfiledbythepetitioner herein,tookintoconsiderationtheDivisionBenchjudgmentreferredto HC-NIC Page 12 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 above and came to the conclusion that the order of compulsory retirementpassedbythemanagementinpublicinterest,afterevaluation andreviewoftheperformanceofthepetitioner,didnotwarrantany interference. In my view, all the relevant aspects of the matter were takenintoconsiderationbytheTribunal.Noerror,nottospeakofany erroroflawcouldbesaidtohavebeencommittedbytheTribunalin passingtheimpugnedorder.
8 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner laid much emphasisontheobservationsmadebytheSupremeCourtintheearlier round of litigation, more particularly, the findings recorded that the managementhadactedwithmaliceandthecasewasnotmerelyoneof discrimination,butwasoneofvictimisationofthepetitionerhereinby the management for raising his voice against exploitation. The observationsoftheSupremeCourtshouldbereadinthecontextofthat particularmatter.Bymerelyrelyingonsuchobservations,everytimethe petitionercannotgetawaybysubmittingthathehasbeenvictimisedby theschoolmanagement.
9 Intheoverallviewofthematter,Iseenogoodreasontointerfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of my supervisory jurisdictionunderArticle227oftheConstitution.
10 [ENTITY],theSpecialCivilApplicationNo.9373of2015failsand isherebyrejected.
11 Sofarastheconnectedpetitioni.etheSpecialCivilApplication No.8562 of 2015 is concerned, the same has been filed with the followingprayers:
HC-NIC Page 13 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 "11(A) YourLordshipsmaybepleasedtodirecttherespondentsto paytheremainingamountpendingwiththeschoolcommitteeinthepay scaleofqualifiedteachersaspertheorderdated06.03.1998passedbythe DEO and as per the interim order dated 05.03.2012 passed in LPA No.1367of2008alongwith %increasinginterest;
(B) YourLordshipmaybepleasedtodirecttherespondentstopaythe salaryandremainingamountasperthecalculationfromMay-19987as wellasthebenefits ofthehigher payscale of92031according tothe governmentprescribedrulesandregulations;
(C) YourLordshipsmaybepleasedtodirecttherespondentstopaythe remainingamountaspertheprovisionmadetoconverttotal300leave includingearnedleaveandhalfpayleaveofthepetitionerintocash;
(D) Your Lordship may be pleased to decide the remaining amount pendingwiththerespondentnos.1and2amountaswellasinwordsfrom 30.04.1998totilltoday;
(E) YourLordshipmaybepleasedtodirecttherespondentNos.1and2 topaytotalRs.640/forwhichRs.500/towardscostsandRs.140/for thebankcharges ofreturn ofcheque, onaccount mistake made bythe respondentNos.1and2asperAnnexureR23,R24andR25.
(F) YourLordshipmaybepleasedtodirecttherespondentNos.1and2 topayRs.5,500/alongwith %increasinginterestasperAnnexure R26.
(G) YourLordshipsmaybepleasedtopasssuchotherandfurtherorder asmayberequiredinthenatureandcircumstancesofthecase.
(H) Costmaybeprovidedforfilingofthepresentpetitiononaccountof mistakeoftherespondents."
12 Ihavenoticedthattherearehighlydisputedquestionsoffactsso farasthiswritapplicationisconcerned.Iamoftheviewthattheissue raisedinthiswritapplicationshouldbelookedintobytherespondents Nos.3and4.TherespondentsNos.3and4aredirectedtolookintothe avermentsmadeinthiswritapplicationandthereafterissueappropriate directions to the respondents Nos.1 and 2. Let this exercise be undertakenbytherespondentsNos.3and4attheearliestandseetoit thatanappropriatedecisionistakenwithinaperiodoffourweeksfrom HC-NIC Page 14 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016 thedateofreceiptofthisorder.Ifanyadditionalinformationisrequired fromthepetitioner,thenthepetitionershallbecalledupontofurnish thesame.Inanyviewofthematter,therespondentsNos.3and4shall take appropriate decision and direct the respondents Nos.1 and 2 accordingly.
13 Withtheabove,thiswritapplicationisdisposedof.
([ENTITY], J.) chandresh HC-NIC Page 15 of 15 Created On Fri Sep 16 03:27:21 IST 2016