The judgment underscores the importance of complete pleadings, sufficient evidence, and proper legal assistance in presenting a case before the court.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri N. K. Saxena, along with 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 attain -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 rendered resignation in the year 1983. By this petition the petitioner has started claim for getting pensionary benefits.

( 3 ) 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 superannuation 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 sabidhaon ka labh keval unnhi shikshannottar karmchariyon ko dai hoga jo apna anshdayi bhavishya nidhi khata mein dinak 31 December, 1983 tak vishwauidyaloyo/ prabankiya/ rajya sarkar ka anshdan ke rup mein jama samasth dhanrashi ush par arjit avem sanklit uyaz ki sampurn dhanrashi sahit shasan ka prapti lekha shirshak "077-Shiksha-Cha-Samanya (AA) Annya praptiya (12) prakeern" mein tatha apne anshdan ki samasth dhanrasht ush par arjit avem sanklit uyaz sahit nikshep lekha shirshak "838-Esthanta Nidhiyon ka nikshep anya swayataya nikayon ka nikshep (kha)-Annya sahayit sikshan sansthano ke school / Mahavidyalon/ Vishvidyalon ka shikshak auem shikshanottar karmchariyon ki bhabishya nidihon ka lane dane ka antargat ekmusht jama karvayenge. Uprokth jama honey wall dhanrashi pratayak dasha mein sambandhit shikshanottar karmchari ka vikalp ka dinak se 90 din ke anndar rajkiya kosh mein jama ho jani chhahiye. Unnhey Dinak 1 January, 1984 se Vishvidyaldyon aanshdan ke roop mein koyee dhanrashi Anumanya na hogi. Bhavishya mein aaisey shikshannottar karmchariyon ke vetan se pratimah kati gayee samanya bhavishya nidhi ke dhanrashi niyamit roop se esee niskchep lekha shirshak ke anntargath Jama hotee rahengee. Vishwavidyalon ka vittha adhikari ess sambandh mein tathkal aabhisthya karvahi surushch. it karayengey. "

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 pensionery benefits. However, the petitioner has mislead the university and has not come to the Court with clean hand.

( 4 ) 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 ple