JUDGMENT :

H.K. Rathod, J.

Heard the learned advocate Mr. P.K. Jani appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Mr. Dabhi appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.

2. In the present petition, looking to the prayers made by petitioner in Para 32 which is quoted as under:

"32(A) : The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent No. 2 to comply with the order dated 14.8.2002, which is at Annexure 'V' to the petition; and be further pleased to release appropriate amount of salary in the account of the petitioner in view of the said order and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner from 27.6.1996 till the entitlement of the petitioner.

32(B) : Pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent No. 2 to comply with the order dated 14.8.2002 (Annexure 'V' hereto) and forthwith release appropriate amount of salary in the account of the petitioner in view of the said order and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner from 27.6.1996 till the entitled of the petitioner;

32(C) : Such other and further relief as are deemed fit, in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be granted."

3. The grievance of the present petitioner is that order dated 14th August 2002 Annexure 'B', the respondent authority has not released appropriate amount of salary in the account of petitioner in view of the said order and not granted any consequential benefits to the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Jani submitted that order dated 14th August 2002, now, it is not permissible to respondent to set aside such order after a period of four years. He submitted that this order is passed by Commissioner of Higher Education, therefore, he should have to file affidavit in respect of averments made in the petition by petitioner. He submitted that Joint Director has not been authorized to file affidavit-in-reply against the present petition. He also submitted that there is no justification is given by respondent to contemplate the cancellation of the order dated 14th August 2002 in respect to petitioner only. Except aforesaid submissions, no other submissions are made by learned advocate Mr. Jani.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Jani. The order dated 14th August 2002 which is at Page 39 wherein certain benefits are required to be given to the petitioner on the basis of information supplied by college authority. This order has been passed or issued by Joint Director of Higher Education and not issued by Commissioner of Higher Education. So, factually, the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Jani is not correct. The important fact is that though order is in favour of the petitioner, according to him, is issued by the concerned authority in the year 2002 which is not implemented by the respondents in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, petition is filed after a period of three years claiming the benefit under order dated 14th August 2002. Meanwhile, except one reply dated 18th September 2003 addressed to the Accounts Officer through the Principal wherein certain details have been given in respect to petitioner by the Principal but so far in respect to the present petitioner is concerned, no application is filed / representation has been made to the respondent authority that why order dated 14th August 2002 is not implemented so far in favour of petitioner. Straightway, petition before approaching to the respondent authority is not maintainable and Court cannot entertain such petition. The Apex Court has considered that writ of mandamus cannot be issued straightway unless and until the petitioner first approached to the respondent authority about his grievance. The same view is taken by the Apex Court in the following reported judgments which are quoted as under:

(i) AIR 1975 SC 460 - Para 24 in case of Saraswati Indust