AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the captioned writ application the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to pay revised pay from 01.01.1971 to
31.12.1980; 01.01.1981 to 31.12.1985; 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1989 and also full pay and allowances from 01.01.1990 to 31.12.1991 as also interest on all
reitral benefits paid in the year 2011 instead of year 1991.
Referring to the statements made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that all the outstanding dues of
the husband of the petitioner for the period January, 1976 to March, 1989 was calculated and the same was paid through bank draft, as evident from
Annexure A to the counter affidavit. So far claim of the petitioner for the salary for the period after 31.03.1989 is concerned, it has been stated that
vide memo dated 29.10.1990 it was decided that the age for retirement of the teachers will be effective only for those teachers who have retired after
31.10.1989 but the husband of the petitioner retired on 31.03.1989; as such he was not entitled for enhancement of age as per the above
circular/memo dated 29.10.1990. Hence, the writ application is fit to be dismissed in limine.
In view of the specific averments made in the counter affidavit supported by documentary evidence, which has not been controverted by learned
counsel for the petitioner, it appears that grievances of the petitioner has been redressed.
In such view of the matter nothing remains to be adjudicated in this case. Hence, the writ petition stands disposed