AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, CJ
There is delay of 395 days in filing this appeal. The second respondent is described as proforma party and no relief as such is claimed against the
said respondent. After hearing Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent
No. 1 / writ petitioner, we are of the view that the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the delay will stand condoned and the Application will stand
allowed.
The judgment dated 12.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge reads as follows:
“Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State.
Heard.
Petitioner has filed present writ petition seeking following two fold reliefs :
(1) his pay be re-fixed and
(2) his length of service towards pensionary benefits be counted as per G.O. dated 05.01.1996,
The fact of the matter is that as per averments made in counter affidavit, the pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed but monetary benefits have not
been released.
The contention of the petitioner is that his service from 1997 to 01.07.2005 has not been counted. He has relied upon the Government Order dated
05.01.1996.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to release the monetary benefits to the petitioner after his refixation
of pay and also to consider the case of the petitioner for counting his services, which he has rendered in private institution in view of G.O. dated
05.01.1996, within a period of six weeks from today.â€
The complaint of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants is directed only against the portion of the judgment in the last paragraph, wherein
the appellants have been directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner for counting his service, which he has rendered in private institution in
view of Government Order dated 05.01.1996 within a period of six weeks from today. In the relief, which the writ petitioner has sought in the writ
petition, petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 21.04.2014. As per the same, it has been found that the writ petitioner is not entitled to pension
on the ground that he has not completed 10 years of service. The writ petitioner relied on Government Order dated 05.01.1996 for the purpose that the
service, which he has rendered in the private institution, can be counted for calculating pension. The case of the appellants appears to be that the said
Government Order does not apply to the case of the writ petitioner.
Since the writ petitioner has challenged order dated 21.04.2014 and since the judgment does not disclose any discussion about the said order and,
without quashing the said order, the learned Single Judge has directed consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for counting of service based on
Government Order dated 05.01.1996, which, according to the appellants, is not applicable to the case of the writ petitioner, we would think that the
judgment, insofar as it relates to the direction to consider the case of the writ petitioner for counting the service in terms of Government Order dated
05.01.1996, cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, insofar as it relates to the direction to consider the
case of the writ petitioner for counting the service, which he has rendered in a private institution, in view of Government Order dated 05.01.1996, will
stand set aside. The matter will stand remitted back and the case will stand listed before the learned Single Judge on 25th July, 2018. We request the
learned Single Judge to dispose of the matter as early as possible. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case
of the parties in regard to the portion, which we have set aside.