1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2010 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2010 Chief Executive Officer & ors. ... Appellants v/s Dashrath Hari Pawar ... Respondent Mr.S.R.Nargolkar for the appellants. Mr.Sanjay Udeshi for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 5TH APRIL, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.34 of 2006. By this order, the Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and order of the Trial Court and has decreed the suit. While doing so, the Appellate Court has declared that the respondent is entitled to pay pension, gratuity and all other service benefits in consonance with the Chattopadhyay Commission Report. The Appellate Court has set aside the order passed by the appellants directing deduction of Rs. 9,124/- from the last pay of the respondent. 2 2. Respondent No.3 before the Appellate Court i.e. the Chief Accountant and Finance Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg, was directed to take necessary steps to regularize the breaks in service and to fix the pay of the respondent in accordance with the Chattopadhyay Commission Report within 90 days from the date of the order. The Appellate Court has further directed that the amounts should be paid to the respondent together with the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 3. Mr.Nargolkar appearing for the appellant submits that Rs.9,124/- has already been paid to the respondent. However, Mr.Udeshi appearing for the respondent states that the cheque has not been accepted by the respondent since the appellants insisted that he accept the amount in full and final settlement of all his claims against the appellants. 4. The amount of Rs.9,124/- shall be sent to the respondent within two weeks from today which will be accepted by him. It is made clear that this amount pertains only to the amount which was deducted from the last pay of the respondent and is not in full and final settlement of all his other claims. 5. As regards the other amounts, in my opinion, the 3 submission of the learned counsel appearing for the State cannot be accepted. It is common ground that under the Chattopadhyay Commission Report, breaks in service can be condoned. According to the learned advocate for the appellants, the breaks can be condoned only after the respondent was made permanent in service. Undisputedly, the respondent was regularized in service with the Kolhapur Zilla Parishad and on the formation of Sindhudurg District he was transferred to the Sindhudurg Zilla Parishad. The Appellate Court has considered this fact and has directed that the regularization of the breaks in service should be considered from 14.8.1980, when the respondent started working as a Graduate Assistant Teacher. 6. In my view there is no need, therefore, to interfere in the matter. No substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. 7. Second appeal stands dismissed along with the civil application. 8. The amounts which are directed to be paid by the Appellate Court must be paid to the respondent within three months from today. ..... 4 5