JUDGMENT :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Dighe, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 8 waive service. Mr. Palshikar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 waive service. Ms. Sarika Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 waive service. None appeared for the remaining respondents though saved.

2. By consent of parties, writ petition is heard finally at the admission stage.

3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus against the respondent no. 3 to settle the claim of the petitioner for 30 years 1 month of service and to pay the petitioner (i) Regular Pension, (ii) Gratuity, (iii) Commutation of pension and (iv) Leave encashment alongwith interest and penal interest as prescribed by the Pension Rules. The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari inter-alia praying for quashing and setting aside the oral directions issued to the respondent no. 5 to withdraw from the service book the annual increment granted to the petitioner on 1st July, 2012 with cumulative effect, for quashing and setting aside the oral directions issued by the respondent no. 3 to recover a sum of Rs. 3,16,500/- from retiral dues payable to the petitioner on account of withdrawal of annual increment granted on 1st July, 2012.

4. The petitioner seeks an order and directions against the respondent no. 3 to revoke and cancel all the notings for recovery of the amount in the pension file or service book of the petitioner and recall the recovery statements handed over to the respondent no. 5. The petitioner also seeks cancellation and return of the undertaking obtained from the petitioner by the respondent no. 3 and to restore the original entry in service book granting annual increment to the petitioner on 1st July, 2012.

5. The petitioner also impugns the communication dated 30th June, 2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension and seeks a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to compensation pension as per Rule 62(4) of the MCS Pension Rules. In the alternate, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to superannuation pension as per Rule 62(1) of the MCS Pension Rules.

6. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under.

7. On or about 12th October, 1987, the petitioner joined as approved lecturer in N.G. Acharya and D.K. Marathe College. On 8th July, 1996, the petitioner resigned from the said N.G. Acharya College and joined the respondent no. 6 on 9th July, 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that with the consent of the respondent no. 6, the petitioner applied for the post of Regular Permanent Principal in the respondent no. 5 College and was selected. The respondent no. 6 turned down the request of the petitioner vide letter dated 29th November, 2012 for keeping lien on the post of Associate Professor and relieved the petitioner from the service from the respondent no. 6 as Associate Professor w.e.f. 30th November, 2012. The petitioner joined as Principal with respondent no. 5 college w.e.f. 1st December, 2012. The petitioner served as Principal in college of the respondent no. 5 for a tenure of five years commencing from 1st December, 2012 till 30th November, 2017.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that the total pensionable/University approved service of the petitioner is 30 years, 1month and 15 days. The respondents however did not sanction pension or pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner. On 8th November, 2017, the respondent no. 5 informed the petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner, which was approved for a period of 5 years from 1st December, 2012 as the Principal of N.G. Acharya College of Commerce will come to an end on 30th November, 2017. Being aggrieved by the said communication dated 8th November, 2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing no. 04 of 2018 before the Mumbai University and College Tribunal. By a judgment dated 28th Ju