/ .v\aw/“ Ii“ .LIIE E‘Iuh COURT OF JUlJlL MIKE AT JALALE’UR v 1 f /i‘“* my; awe“ (a SE» o£ 99 ‘b Vinod Kumar Jba son of :Lzai-e Sbri Eemda'tiia Jba, aged abou“: 7O yearsg R/Q Itawari Eazar Roach Khairégar‘b, Rajnandgoam /’ PLmlilOTTLF u REgEmx g/ Inst; tutlans; , W ’ m, , ; The $at‘c— of Madhya P‘radesm Through The gecraiary, Higher Education, vallabh Bhavan, Eb op a1 (m? . ). . “‘he Comuwloner o£ higbcr "‘ baum’uonQ Twonu-uevk Hwqb \rwwavw duca‘tiona . \ 3%wx bhonal ” way.) , a p3. The Chzlncellor of U'nivex'gities, Office of Hon'ble Governar, majb'navan, Bhopal (ELK). The Kala Sangit vishwavidyalaya, {numgarh Ramandgoan (my )9 ‘Tvxwx M Q¢%;‘J\M 2mm PETITION mm ARI). Lao/247 OF THE corixsgggggggg OF I NDIA The petitioner abovenameo‘ most regp ectfully begs to submi't as under u. 1. gAmxgggRs ox? THE PETITIONQEg s .wm’mw As siated above in Jc‘ne cause Tikle, 2, ggg‘rxcuzjams OF m‘georzggggg As, swied above in t‘he cauge‘Ti’tle, I XI-HC—22 v 15/69l2003: ~ Heard Shri MP6. Bhqfiq dounsel for The pefifioner and Shri of fhe 5mm Qanbir Singh, Govt Advuca‘re, for- ‘ Chha‘r'risgarh/respondent. The pefi‘i'ioner has prefe‘Fred fhis pafi‘fion under Arfides 226/227 of fhe Cons*i1'u1‘ion of Endia 'm which he has mem'ioned Thm' i he was an empbyee of responde‘nf No.4 namely Indira Kala Sahgit Vishwavidycluy'a, Khaimgarh; The pefifionar' was refired from service on 30/04/1989 while he was won ing on The post of Head Clerk and since refiremem, refrial benef 1's have no? been given To The ge‘rifioner as gpplicabte *ro The amp oyees of respondenf N04. K In The refurn submif’red b respondems 1 and 2 if has been memioned Thé'r- The peTiTione was refired from service on 01/05/1989 and fhereaffer he wa given exfension up f0 24/07/1990 as Upper Division Cierk. This oppoinfmen? from 01/08/1990 To 08/04/1994 he had worked as n& oc in the Insfifu‘l'ion. Respondenfs 1 and 2 have already issued Pensi n Payment Order to The pe‘ri’rioner on 26/09/1998. Therefore, fhe oniy dispufe is of The period from 01/05/1989 io 08/04/1994 as ih pefifione‘r had worked on exfension and ihis ex‘rension confirmed only up 1'0 24/0?/1990and he workedas// / XI-HC-ZZ 18/04/1994. Hence, This period is aspondenfs 1 and 2 are considering teen days. The omy dispu’re would remain affair finding fhis from 01/05/1989 ‘i'o 24/07/1990.. ‘In view of ‘The above fads and circumswnces pension and he wiii no‘r be en'i'i‘riec $ervice‘ Hence, This pe‘ri'rion is maieriai subsfance. The same is lint I have heard The learned cour A perusal of The pension orc' vicle This order pension w.e.f. 08/0 been sancTioned and vide anoTher Rs.22,447/- being The amounT of communicm‘ion paymenf Rs.10,22 Therefore, The only dispuTe remain for The period w.e.f. 01/05/1989 To 07/04/1994. Regarding This eriod respondenTs 1 and 2 have admiTTed in Their reTurn ThaT The are considering The case of The peTiTioner. daiiy wages from 01/08/1990 To C ho? pensiemble as per The rules. E for finalizing the pen$ion wimih‘ fif , The peTiTioner is only enTi‘l'led for l for D.A. in case of exTension of misconceived and devoid of any Tle To be dismissed. isel for The parTies. ler daTed 01/03/1999 reveals ThaT 4/1994 To 31/10/1998 has already daTed 01/03/1999 an amounT of graTuiTy Rs.'12,293/- and pension /- have also been sancTioned. i They have menTio ed ThaT from 01/05/1989 To 23/OY/1990 The peTiTioner was giv n 'exTension and ThaT is why he is noT enTiTled for any pension for T aT'period, Whereas a perusal of XI-HC-ZZ WWW _ 3_. The order (Annexure—P/17) dafed pe‘tifioner was appointed us UDC 'm f of Rs.1200—1800, on Rs‘1200/- per mc aibwances, as per fhe Universify Rule 1‘9 29/07/1989. Thereafw‘er- #he pawl days on The same pay—scale wel. Therefore, in any case This cannoT he considered as The exTension. Thereafl'er The peli'l’loner was tages. This was The independen'l' ) be 'rhe exfension. and again af'ler 29/07/1989. T enfiTled for wifhholding The ' In View of The above, The peTiTioner is enTiTled for The pension ef. 01/05/1989 onward and since ranfed from 08/04/1994 To 31/1 recked ‘l'o gran-r pension To The 7/04/1994. However, if rules pel nlilled To deduct i'he amounl’ equivalé he amaunf, which was paid‘fo fhe ppainfmenfs, which were for fhe per There is clear brake of service‘ ‘appoinfed from 01/08/1990 on daily LA appoin‘rmen‘l’ and if cannof be said 'rg break in szrvice Le. 01/05/1989 Therefore, fhe respondents are nu Dension of The peli‘rioner for 1'ha'r period. 02/05/1998 reveals Tha'l The we UniversiTy in The scale of pay nTh, plus The DA/ADA and oTher s, for 89 days from 02/05/1989 ‘ioner was again appoinTed for 89 30/01/1990 The pension'has already been l0/1998, The respondenTs are peTiTion from 01/05/1989 To ‘miT Then The respon‘denTs are .nT To The pension amounT ouT of peTiTione‘r during The Two re- od of 89 days each namely 02L There was r/ / //' / To 28/04/1990. (/x m g w 3 : t I ~ XI-HC—22 mm L .I m 200 ma.