SCA/128019/1999 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1280 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= HASMUKHLAL MOHANLAL PANDYA - Petitioner(s) Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR RM CHHAYA for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 12/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed to direct the respondents to release the retirement dues like pension, gratuity, privilege leave etc. SCA/128019/1999 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. The petitioner was working as a Store Keeper with the respondent. The petitioner due to some personal reasons, vide letter dated 31st March, 1998 sought voluntary retirement from service with effect from 30th June, 1998 and also requested the respondent to pay all the retirement dues. 2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondent vide letter dated 10th July, 1998 informed the petitioner to resume the duties again till his application for voluntary retirement is sanctioned. It is further the case of the petitioner that despite repeated requests to pay the retirement dues, the respondent has not paid it. 2.3. On 16th November, 1998, the petitioner sent a Notice through his advocate to the respondents requesting them to release the retiremental due, but till date the same has not be paid to the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. From the SCA/128019/1999 3/3 JUDGMENT record it is evident that the petitioner has misappropriated the amount and thereby he has gained monetary benefit from it. Moreover, though notices were sent to the petitioner to resume the duties, the petitioner has not resumed it. Thus, considering the facts of the case, and looking to the allegation levelled against the petitioner, I do not find any merits in this petition. Apart from that the voluntary retirement application was tendered by the petitioner after the inspection was carried out and thereafter the petitioner has not resumed the duties in order to avoid the punishment of any penalty. Thus, in my opinion, the conduct of the petitioner was not proper since he has misappropriated large amount. The petition, therefore, does not deserve to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/