SHYAM MOHAN LAL Vs. GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY
LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-130
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 03,2003

Shyam Mohan Lal Appellant
VERSUS
GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY Respondents




JUDGEMENT

R.B.MISRA, J. - (1.)HEARD Sri N.K. Saxena, alongwith Arti Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.)IN this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1 -8 -1980 and by amendment application the order dated 14 -8 -1999 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur has also been challenged. According to the petitioner the date of birth of the petitioner is 15 -7 -1920 and he was appointed as a mechanic in the workshop of Physics Department. In due course of time, he was promoted to the post of Lab Assistant and thereafter as Senior Lab Assistant and petitioner was to attend 60 years on 31 -7 -1980, however, the petitioner worked unauthorisedly beyond the date of superannuation i.e. 14 -7 -1980 with the connivance of the University authority and when it was noticed that the petitioner had already completed the age of superannuation then he was asked to submit the date of birth certificate which he deliberately avoided. The petitioner did not submit authentic proof of date of birth and therefore, cleverly he tendered resignation in the year 1983. By this petition the petitioner has started claim for getting pensionary benefits.
The counter -affidavit has been filed, according to which petitioner has already received the contributory provident fund and in view of the Government Orders and petitioner has not disclosed his permanent address even. In these circumstances his service book could also not been prepared, however, taking the authority in good faith the petitioner had continued beyond the age of super annuation and has received the salary. Petitioner had tendered his resignation on 1 -4 -1983 as indicated in para 5 of the counter -affidavit. According to the Government order dated 24 -1 -1984 as enclosed as Annexure -5 to the writ petition, the person is to be retired at the age of 60 years under Clause 5 of G.O. which reads as under: -

ISH SHASANADESH DWARA SWEEKRIT SUVIDHAON KA LABH KAVAL UNNHI SHIKSHANNOTTAR KARMCHARIYON KO DAI HOGA JO APENA ANSHDAYI BHAVISHYA NIDHI KHATA MEIN DINAK 31 DECEMBER, 1983 TAK VISHWAVIDYALOYO/PRABANKIYA/RAJYA SARKAR KA ANSHDAN KA RUP MEIN JAMA SAMASHTH DHANRASHI USH PAR ARJIT AVEM SANKLIT VYAZ KI SAMPURN DHANRASHI SAHIT SHASAN KA PRAPTI LEKHA SHIRSHAK 077 -SHIKSHA -CHA -SAMANYA (AA) ANNYA PRAPTIYA (12) PRAKEERN MEIN TATHA APENE AANSHDAN KI SAMASTH DHANRASHI USH PAR ARJIT AVEM SANKLIT VYAJ SAHIT NIKSHEP LEKHA SHIRSHAK 838 -ESTHANIA NIDHIYON KA NIKSHEP ANYA SWAVITAYA NIKAYON KA NIKSHEP (KHA) -ANNYA SAHAYIT SIKSHAN SANSTHANO KE SCHOOL/MAHAVIDYALON/VISHVIDYALON KA SHIKSHAK AVEM SHIKSHANATTAR KARMCHARIYON KI BHABISHYA NIDHION KE LANE DANE KA ANTARGAT EKMUSHT JAMA KARVAYANGE. UPROKTH JAMA HONEY WALI DHANRASHI PRATAYAK DASHA MEIN SAMBANDHIT SHIKSHANOTTAR KARMCHARI KA VIKALP KE DINAK SE 90 DIN KA ANNDAR RAJKIYA KOSH MEIN JAMA HO JANI CHHAHIYA. UNNHEY DINAK 1 JANUARY, 1984 SE VISHVIDYALOYON AANSHDAN KA ROOP MEIN KOYEE DHANRASHI ANUMANYA NA HOGI. BHAVISHYA MEIN AAISEY SHIKSHANNOTTAR KARMCHARIYON KA VATAN SE PRATIMAH KATI GAYEE SAMANYA BHAVISHYA NIDHI KI DHANRASHI NIYAMIT ROOP SE ESEE NISKCHEP LEKHA SHIRSHAK KA ANNTARGATH JAMA HOTEE RAHANGEE. VISHWAVIDYALON KA VITTHA ADHIKARI ESS SAMBANDH MEIN TATHKAL AABHISTHYA KARVAHI SUNISHCHIT KARAYANGEY.

This order does not disclose any detail whether the petitioner has tendered resignation. In these circumstances as per G.O. No. 6895/15 -(15) -1983 (7)/82 dated 24 -1 -1984 the petitioner was otherwise not entitled to the pensionary benefits. However, the petitioner has mislead the university and has not come to the Court with clean hand.

(3.)IT is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. (Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181; M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.,, AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors., 1998(2) LBESR 743 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 411; Chitra Kumari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237 and State of U.P. and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, 2001(2) LBESR 6 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 1298).


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.