AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Dube, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 625/2019 as well as order dated 11.04.2019 passed in Review Petition No. 69/2019.
The writ petition was filed praying for the following reliefs:
“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to release the 100% monthly pension @ 34,540/- from the date of retirement and the difference amount between 34,540/- and 34,001/- from 01.05.2018 till actual disbursement of 100% of pension.
10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to release the other benefits as group Insurance, leave encashment, GPF and the amount of gratuity also be calculated and disburse to the petitioner with interest for delayed payment.
10.4 Cost of the proceedings kindly be awarded.
10.5 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon’ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.”
The petitioner retired from service as a Professor of Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur on 30.04.2018.
The grievance expressed in this appeal is that the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge without issuing any notice to the appellant and as such, the appellant was denied opportunity of placing its case before the learned Single Judge.
Mr. Choubey submits that because of the fact that no notice was issued to the appellant, a review petition was filed before the learned Single Judge, but the same was also dismissed by order dated 11.04.2019.
A perusal of the order passed in the review petition goes to show that submission was advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that an amount of Rs. 22,22,446/- against the writ petitioner was remaining outstanding.
Mr. Dube has submitted that the petitioner was exonerated in a departmental proceeding and there is no outstanding dues payable by the petitioner.
Mr. Choubey submits that pension at the rate of 90% is being paid to the petitioner and leave encashment dues have also been paid. However, because of the aforesaid disputed amount, payment of provident fund and gratuity could not be made.
Mr. Dube does not dispute that the writ petition came to be disposed of without issuing notice to the appellant-University.
In the case of Johra & Others v. State of Haryana, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no order can be passed without hearing a party to the proceedings as it would be against the principles of natural justice.
In that view of the matter, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remand the matter for fresh consideration. Bearing in mind that the writ petitioner had retired almost four years back, an early resolution is called for. The appellant-University is granted time till 2nd of May, 2022 to file its response in the writ petition. It is made clear that if no response is filed within the aforesaid date, the University will lose the right of filing its response.
The writ petitioner, if so advised, may file his rejoinder to the reply-affidavit, on or before 13th of May, 2022.
As from 14th of May, 2022, Summer Vacation starts, Registry will list this case before the learned Single Judge on 21st of June, 2022 for admission. The learned Single Judge is requested to dispose of the writ petition at the earliest.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of.