( 1 ) THE short facts of the case appears to be that the respondent No. 2 was working as the Head Clerk in the petitioner School. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 2 was allotted quarter in his capacity as an employee of the School and as the respondent No. 2 retired from service on 31. 10. 2002, he had to vacate the quarter. Since the quarter was not vacated, it was decided by the General Body of the petitioner School that the papers for retiral dues of the respondent No. 2 shall not be signed by the Principal. It appears that thereafter, respondent No. 2 approached to the petitioner for preparation of the papers of retiral dues. However, the papers were not signed and the respondent No. 2 approached to the DEO by making complaint. Based on the same, respondent No. 1 herein issued show-cause notice dated 13. 05. 2003. The pertinent aspect is that, in the said show-cause notice, it was mentioned for reduction of 10% of the grant and the petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why the action should not be taken. Ultimately, the respondent No. 1 passed the order on 27. 04. 2003, after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 and directed for withholding of 25% of the grant and it is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring the present petition.

( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Patel, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

( 3 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had allotted quarter to respondent No. 2 in the capacity as the employee and therefore, if the insistence is made for vacating of the quarter, such an approach cannot be said as unreasonable. It was also submitted that the respondent No. 2 declined to vacate the quarter and therefore, the papers were not signed pursuant to the Resolution passed by the General Body of the School. It was also submitted that the DEO in any case, had issued show cause notice for deduction of 10% of the grant whereas in the final order, grant is ordered to be withheld for 25%. Therefore, he has travelled beyond the show-cause notice. Mr. Desai, lastly submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 04. 09. 2003, the petitioners have forwarded pension papers to the authorities and pension is sanctioned and the respondent No. 2 is receiving the pension regularly. He therefore, submitted that this Court may set aside the order passed by the DEO of withholding of the grant.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondent No. 1, the learned AGP contended that since the pension papers were not signed or rather refused to sign, the DEO was justified in taking action against the school management and therefore, decision for deduction of the grant either 25% or 10% cannot be said as unjust and arbitrary and therefore, the order passed by the DEO be maintained.

( 5 ) WHEREAS on behalf of the respondent No. 2, the learned counsel submitted that the premises was allotted to the respondent No. 2 not in the capacity as the employee, but was as the tenant and the suit for eviction was also pending and no orders were passed by the Civil Court for vacating thereof. The petitioners wanted to bring undue pressure and declined to sign the pension papers and therefore, the respondent No. 2 had to move the application in the present proceedings and this Court vide order dated 04. 09. 2003 had granted conditional stay of forwarding the papers and thereafter, the pension is sanctioned. However, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that as there was delay in sanctioning of the pension, the respondent No. 2 has preferred the application being No. 394/03 before the Tribunal for recovery of the interest from the school management and the principal and therefore, it was submitted that irrespective of the aspects of imposition of the penalty of withholding of the grant or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document