# Sunil Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 605
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-02-03
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 23887 of 2009
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-dubey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43249
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921-Section
9-A-Power of Government-interference with
appointment and cancellation regarding non
teaching staff-either commission or the State
Government-no
authority
to
interfere-if
commission triangulated it power-shall be
without jurisdiction-petitioner's appointment
on post of class 4th employee after due
compliance of recruitment procedure-duly
approved by DIOS as well as regional
committee-without canceling the order-order
impugned passed by principal in compliance
of direction of commission-illegal quashed.
Held: Para-28 & 29

## Text

2 All] Sunil Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
605
19. The other ground given by the
Senior Superintendent of Police is that
there is a strong possibility of commission
of offences by the petitioner as he is likely
to be in association with anti social
elements who keep coming to the bar for
which licence is owned by his wife.
Firstly, the petitioner does not appear to
have been put to any such notice about
any such activity in which the petitioner is
involved of associating himself with anti
social elements and, therefore, the order
dated 3.2.2014 is in violation of principles
of
natural
justice.
Secondly,
even
assuming for the sake of arguments that
there was any information available to the
Senior Superintendent of Police about
visits of anti social elements to the bar
licensed in the name of the petitioner's
wife, then such information is not disclosed
either in the impugned order nor is it
disclosed in the counter affidavit. There is no
indication as to who are those anti social
elements who allegedly participated in the
commission of offences or are habitual
offenders either within Class-A or Class-B of
the offences mentioned under Regulation
228. There is no indication of any offence
having been abetted by the petitioner in
association with any such anti social
elements after the petitioner's wife has
opened
the
licensed
bar.
In
such
circumstances, the impugned order suffers
from perversity and nonobjectivity. The
impugned order dated 3.2.2014, therefore,
cannot be sustained for the reasons aforesaid.
20. We accordingly allow the
petition and quash the order dated
3.2.2014 with a direction to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Varanasi to pass
a fresh order keeping in view the
observations made hereinabove within a
period of three months.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 23887 of 2009
Sunil Kumar Dubey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Tripathi, Sri Harsh Kumar, Sri Satish
Chandra Pandey, Sri Shailesh Pandey, Sri
Yamuna Pandey
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vivek Singh
U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921-Section
9-A-Power of Government-interference with
appointment and cancellation regarding non
teaching staff-either commission or the State
Government-no
authority
to
interfere-if
commission triangulated it power-shall be
without jurisdiction-petitioner's appointment
on post of class 4th employee after due
compliance of recruitment procedure-duly
approved by DIOS as well as regional
committee-without canceling the order-order
impugned passed by principal in compliance
of direction of commission-illegal quashed.
Held: Para-28 & 29
28. In view of the above discussion I hold
that the State Government does not have
any power under sub. section (4) of Section
9 of the Act No. II of the 1921, in respect of
recruitment of teachers or non teaching
staff or Class IV employees as the power is
vested to various educational authorities in
respect of recruitment of the teachers and
non teaching staff.
29. After careful consideration of the
material on record I am of the view that
the termination order passed by the
Principal of the College in compliance of
606
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the order of the State Government, Joint
Director and the District Inspector of
Schools are patently illegal and arbitrary.
Case Law discussed:
2013 (1) ADJ 606; 1966 SC 292; AIR 1967 SC
109; (2002) 4 SCC 743; AIR 2002 SC 2004;
(2003) 8 SCC 673; (2013) 3 UPLBEC 1879.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)
1. The petitioner Sunil Kumar
Dubey is a Class IV employee in a
recognized Intermediate College.
2. Brief reference of the factual
aspects would suffice.
3.

Adarsh
Inter
College,
Bisunderpur,
district Mirzapur
is
a
recognized Institution by the Board of
High School and Intermediate. It receives
aid out of the State Fund. the provisions
of the Act No.II of 19211, regulations
framed thereunder and the Act No. 24 of
19712 are applicable to the institution.
The institution is established by a society
and its affairs are administered by the
Committee
of
Management,
the
respondent no.3 herein, in terms of the
provisions of the aforesaid Acts.
4. In the said College three post of
Class IV employee fell vacant. The
Principal under the Act No. II of 1921, is
the appointing authority of Class IV
employee. He made an application dated
8.9.2005 seeking permission of the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
for
appointment on the post of three peons in
accordance with law. A copy of the
permission
accorded by the District
Inspector of Schools is on the record as
Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is
averred in the writ petition that after
obtaining
the
said
permission
the
Principal issued advertisement in two
newspapers namely Rashtriya Sahara and
in one local newspaper on 10.1.2006
calling the application for appointment on
the aforesaid three posts. Copies of the
advertisement published in the newspaper
is Annexure-2 and 3 to the writ petition.
5.
The petitioner claims that in
pursuance to the said advertisement he made
an application and after the interview he was
found suitable. The Principal of the College
sent papers to the District Inspector of
Schools for its approval and in the meantime
he issued an appointment on 15.2.2006. The
District Inspector of Schools in terms of the
Government Order dated 16.12.2000 referred
the matter to the Regional Level Committee
for approval of the payment of salary. The
Joint Director who is Chairman of the
Regional Level committee vide order dated
4.7.2007 directed the District Inspector of
Schools, Mirzapur to make the payment of
salary to the petitioner. A copy of the order
of the Joint Director of Education is
Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It is stated
that pursuance to the said order the District
Inspector of Schools accorded his financial
approval vide order dated 10.7.2007 and
from the said date the petitioner has pleaded
that he was continuously working and
receiving his salary.
6. In the meantime one Sandeep
Kumar Pandey who was not even
candidate challenged the appointment of
the petitioner before this Court by means
of Writ Petition No. 49181 of 2007
(Sandeep Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.
And others), which was disposed of on
11.10.2007 with a direction upon the
District Inspector of Schools to consider
the complaint of Sandeep Kumar Pandey
and pass appropriate order in accordance
2 All] Sunil Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
607
with law. In compliance thereof the District
Inspector of Schools passed a elaborate
reasoned order on 8.1.2008 wherein he
found that the complaint made by Sandeep
Kumar Pandey was baseless and incorrect.
He has also recorded a finding that the
appointment of the petitioner is in
accordance with law. The said order was
challenged by the Sandeep Kumar Pandey
by means of Writ Petition No. 23106 of
2008. In the said writ petition no interim
order was passed by this Court and it is
tagged with the present writ petition.
7. In the meantime one Bharat Kumar
Tiwari approached the Commissioner of the
Mirzapur Region. In his complaint he has
reiterated the allegations which have been
found incorrect by the District Inspector of
Schools and the said order is subjudice
before this Court. The Commissioner sent a
communication dated 27.6.2008 to the
Director of Education (Madhyamik), Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow with a copy to the
Principal
Secretary
(Madhyamik
Education), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and
Secretary(Madhyamik Education), Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow. From the records it
appears that the Director has not taken any
action on the letter of the Commissioner.
8. On the basis of the said
communication the Joint Secretary vide
communication dated 6th March, 2009
issued a direction to the Director of
Education (Madhyamik), to cancel the
appointment
of
the
petitioner
with
immediate effect. It is averred in the writ
petition that in compliance of the said
order of the State Government/Joint
Secretary,
the
appointment
of
the
petitioner has been cancelled by the Joint
Director
of
Education,
Vidhyachal
Region, Mirzapur on 30.3.2009 and a
consequential order has been passed by
the District Inspector of Schools and the
Committee of Management terminating
the services of the petitioner.
9. In paragraph 27 of the writ
petition the petitioner has stated that all
these
proceedings
by
the
State
Government and other authorities have
been conducted
without giving any
opportunity.
10. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that his appointment
was challenged in this Court and in
compliance of the order of this Court dated
11.10.2007 the District Inspector of Schools
after giving full opportunity to the
complainant has passed a detailed order on
8.1.2008 and he found that the appointment
of the petitioner was valid. He has also
referred the matter in respect of payment of
salary to the petitioner to the Regional
Level Committee and after the approval of
the Regional Level Committee the salary of
the petitioner has been paid. The said order
has been challenged before this Court by
means of Writ Petition No. 23106 of 2008
but the Court has not granted any interim
order and the petitioner therein is not
pursuing the matter. The said writ petition is
listed today but there is no one to press the
said writ petition.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that another complainant has made
a complaint to the Commissioner who has
conducted an enquiry behind the back of the
petitioner without giving any opportunity to
the petitioner. He wrote a letter to the State
Government go cancel the appointment of
the petitioner ignoring the fact that Regional
Level Committee and the District Inspector
of Schools accordingly held that the
appointment of the petitioner is valid and
legal and the validity of the said order is
608
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
subjudice before this Court. He further
urged that the Commissioner and the State
Government has exceeded their jurisdiction
by taking decision in the matter which is
already subjudice before this Court.
12. Lastly he urged that under the
provisions of the Act No. II of 1921, the
Commissioner is completely alien and
State Government also has no authority to
cancel the appointment of a Class IV
employee of a recognized Institution.
13.
A counter affidavit has been filed.
The stand taken in the counter affidavit is on the
basis
of
enquiry
conducted
by
the
Commissioner, the State Government has taken
the decision and a direction has been issued to
cancel the appointment of the petitioner. In the
counter affidavit the averments made in the writ
petition that all the action of the State
Government
and
the
Commissioner,
Vindhyachal Region, has been taken without
any opportunity has not been denied.
14. On 7.5.2009 time was granted to
the respondent no.1 but he has preferred
not to file counter affidavit.
15. Learned Standing Counsel has
taken the Court to the various paragraphs
of the counter affidavit in support of his
submission
that
the
enquiry
was
conducted by the Commissioner who
found that the petitioner's appointment
was illegal. He further submitted that he
has also received the instruction by the
District Inspector of Schools. On the basis
of the said instructions he has tried to
justify the action of the State Government
and the Commissioner. Learned Standing
Counsel has also submitted that the State
Government under section 9(4) of the Act
No. II of 1921 has ample power to cancel
the appointment.
16. I have heard learned counsel and
perused the material on record. The
Principal is the appointing authority of a
Class IV employee in an Intermediate
College. It is on the record that on
8.9.2005, the Principal had sought the
permission from the District Inspector of
Schools to fill the vacancies of Class IV
employee. The District Inspector of
Schools had permitted him to initiate the
recruitment process by order dated
15.12.2005. In compliance thereof the
advertisement
were
made
in
two
newspapers and after the appointment
petitioner's papers were sent to the
District Inspector of Schools for his
approval. The District Inspector of
Schools, sent the papers before the
Regional Level Committee. The Regional
Level Committee accorded its approval
for payment of salary and this decision
was communicated by the Joint Director
of Education, Vindhyachal Region, vide
communication
dated
4.7.2007.
The
District
Inspector
of
Schools
after
affording opportunity to the complainant
Sandeep Kumar Pandey came to hold that
the allegations against the selection of the
petitioner was baseless and incorrect and
he found that the appointment of the
petitioner was made in accordance with
law.
17. The said order has been
challenged by means of Writ Petition No.
23106 of 2008 before this Court which
has been dismissed by the Court. The
petitioner's services have been terminated
pursuant to the order of the State
Government dated 6th March, 2009. From
the said letter it appears that the State
Government has passed that order only on
the basis of the recommendation of the
Commissioner
without
giving
any
opportunity to petitioner. The order also
2 All] Sunil Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
609
indicate that there is no application of
mind.
18.
The
issue
whether
a
Commissioner has authority to conduct
such enquiry has already been considered
by this Court in the case of Madan Kumar
and others v. District Magistrate, Auraiya
reported 2013 (1) ADJ 606, while
considering the said issue the Court held
that under the Act No. II of 1921 the
District Magistrate does not have any power
to issue a direction to the District Inspector
of Schools to cancel the appointment of the
employees of a recognized Institution.
Relevant paragraph of the said judgement
reads as under:-
"A close look at the gamut of the
Scheme of the Act instantly brings out
that the District Magistrate is a foreign
authority under the Scheme. There is no
reference of the District Magistrate in the
entire Scheme of the Act.
In case the institution receives aid out
of the State Fund the provisions of the U.P.
High Schools and Intermediate Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other
Employees) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred
to Act No. 24 of 1971), a close look at the
Scheme of the said Act No. 24 of 1971 also
establishes that like U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 under this Act also the
District Magistrate has not been assigned
any role. The Regional Deputy Director of
Education and the District Inspector of
Schools
are
authorities
to
pass
orders/directions
against
the
erring
managements. The order passed by those
authorities are appealable under section 7
and under section 8 revision lies to the State
Government. Again in this Act also there is
no reference of the District Magistrate under
any provisions of the Act."
19. What emerges from the above
mentioned case is that any authority
which has not been conferred any power
under the Act, Regulation or Rules has no
jurisdiction/power/authority
to
take
decision independently. If he has received
some complaint, he may refer it to the
appropriate authority to take action in
accordance with law.
20. In the present case I am of the view
that the action of the Commissioner is totally
arbitrary and he has transgressed his
jurisdiction by conducting an enquiry in the
matter. The Act does not give any power to
the District Magistrate, Commissioner or any
Administrative Officer to conduct an enquiry
and
take
decision
himself.
If
the
Commissioner had received any complaint
against the selection of a Class IV employee,
the proper course was that the Commissioner
ought to have sent the complaint to the
appropriate authority. However, in the
present case the Commissioner has exceeded
his jurisdiction by conducting an enquiry
himself in the matter. The said exercise taken
by the Commissioner is wholly without
jurisdiction, arbitrary and appears to be
infected with bias.
21. In addition to above the order of
the Commissioner is totally unfair as he
has not given any opportunity to the
petitioner
before
reaching
at
the
conclusion that the appointment of the
petitioner is illegal. The petitioner has
averred in writ petition in paragraph 24
and 27 that no opportunity was afforded
to the petitioner. Paragraph 24 and 27 of
the writ petition reads as under :-
"24. That even the principal of the
college also passed the impugned order
dated 28.04.2009, without affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
610
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and without giving any show cause notice
to him hence the impugned order dated
28.4.2009 passed by the respondent no.4
is liable to be quashed by on this ground
alone.
27.That it appears that behind the
back of the petitioner, some body has
made complaint to the State Government
upon which the Joint Secretary of the
State Government and upon which the
Joint Director of Education, Vindhyachal
Mandal, Mirzapur have directed the
District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur to
cancel the appointment of the petitioner
and to terminate his services."
22. The reply given by the
respondents in their counter affidavit in
paragraph 13 and 15 reads as under :-
**13&;gfd ;kfpdk ds izLrj 20 ls 24 rd esa
of.kZr dFku esa ;g dguk gS fd 'kklu ds i=
fnukad 6 ekpZ 2009 ds vuqikyu esa mDr dk;Zokgh
dh xbZ gS A ftldh Nk;k izfr layXud lh0,0 1
ds :i esa layXu dh tk jgh gS A**
**15&;gfd ;kfpdk ds izLrj 26 ls 30 rd esa
of.kZr dFku esa ;g dguk gS fd vk;qDr foU?;kpy
e.My ehjtkiqj ds tkWap vk[;k fnukad 27&6&2008
,oa 'kklu ds i= fnukad 6 ekpZ 2009 ds dze esa
leLr dk;Zokgh izfroknh }kjk dh x;h gSa ftldh
Nk;k izfr layXud lh0,0 2 ds :i esa layXu dh
tk jgh gSA ;fn tkWap esa fu;qfDr esa vfu;ferrk
ik;h x;h gS rks mlds vuqlkj foHkkx n~okjk
dk;Zokgh dh gS tks fu;ekuqdwy gS]
vr% mijksDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;kph
n~okjk nk;j ;kfpdk vk/kkjghu o cyghu gksus ds
dkj.k iks"k.kh; ugha gS vkSj ;kph ekuuh; U;k;ky;
ls fdlh Hkh izdkj vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh
ugha gS vkSj ;kph dh ;kfpdk lO;; fujLr fd;s
tkus ;ksX; gS A**
23. From a reading of the aforesaid
paragraphs it is evident that there is no
specific denial of the fact. It is trite law
that if a fact is not denied specifically then
it amounts admission. Reference may be
made to the judgement of the Supreme
Court in Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi
Singh Bhujil and Ors, 1966 SC 292;
Jahuri
Sah
v.
Dwarika
Prasad
Jhunjhunwala & Ors, AIR 1967 SC 109;
M.L. Subbaraya Setty vs. M.L. Nagappa
Setty (2002) 4 SCC 743; Rakesh
Wadhawan & Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial
Corporation & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 2004
and Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar,
(2003) 8 SCC 673.
24. The State Government has also
exceeded its jurisdiction as simply on the
basis of the order of the Commissioner
without affording opportunity to the
petitioner, has passed the order cancelling
the appointment of the petitioner. The
State Government does not have any such
power in respect of the recruitment of a
teacher or non teaching employee or Class
IV employee. On the other hand the
submission of the learned Standing
Counsel that the State Government has
exercised its power under section 9 (4) of
the Act II of 1921, hardly merit
acceptance. Section 9 (4) of the Act, II of
1921 reads as as under:-
"9 (4) Whenever, in the opinion of
the State Government, it is necessary or
expedient to take immediate action, it
may, without making any reference to the
Board under the foregoing provisions,
pass such order or take such other action
consistent with the provisions of this Act
as it deems necessary, and in particular,
may be such order modify or rescind or
make any regulation in respect of any
matter and shall forthwith inform the
Board accordingly."
25. A simple reading of Section 9
(4) of the Act No. II of 1921 makes it
clear that the State Government can
exercise its power only in consistent with
2 All] Sunil Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
611
the provisions of the Act. It does not have
any power to pass order contrary to the
Act.
26. The scope of Section 9 (4) of the
Act has been considered by this Court in
C.M.W.P.No. 24401 of 2013 (Committee
of
Management,
Shiv
Charan
Das
Kanhaiya Lal Inter College and Another
v. State of U.P. And others) reported
(2013) 3 UPLBEC 1879, in the following
terms:-
"The question, therefore, is can the
Government Order dated 15.3.2012 be
read as a Government Order under
Section 9 (4) of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921. The provisions of
Sub-section (4) of Section 9 are extracted
hereunder:-
"(4) Whenever, in the opinion of the
State Government, it is necessary or
expedient to take immediate action, it
may, without making any reference to the
Board under the foregoing provisions,
pass such order or to take such other
action consistent with the provisions of
this Act as it deems necessary, and in
particular, may, by such order modify or
rescind or make any regulation in respect
of any matter and shall forthwith inform
the Board accordingly."
A perusal of the aforesaid power as
conferred on the State Government
clearly indicates that such a power can be
exercised provided the action is consistent
with the provisions of the Act. The
Regulations framed under Chapter III of
the U.P. Intermediate Education Act
makes a provision for appointment of
class-III and IV employees. There is no
amendment in the 1921 Act or the
Regulations framed thereunder of banning
any such appointments. In the absence of
any such specific provision being made,
the Government Order dated 15.3.2012
would not survive the test of the
ingredients of Section 9 (4) of the 1921
Act. The said Government Order nowhere
discusses as to why and why not is it
necessary, to proceed, not to make
appointments against class-III posts in
Intermediate and High Schools governed
by the 1921 Act."
27. The appointment of the
petitioner has been approved by the
District Inspector of Schools , Regional
Level Committee and the Joint Director of
Education, Vindhyachal Region. Those
orders have not been cancelled. In fact in
one of the writ petition filed by the
complainant Sandeep Kumar Pandey, it was
disposed of by a direction to the authority
concerned to adjudicate the matter. In
compliance thereof the appointment of the
petitioner was found legal. Therefore, the
State Government ignoring these material
facts and the order and the Commissioner
without application of mind has issued the
direction
for
cancellation
of
the
appointment of the petitioner.
28. In view of the above discussion I
hold that the State Government does not
have any power under sub. section (4) of
Section 9 of the Act No. II of the 1921, in
respect of recruitment of teachers or non
teaching staff or Class IV employees as
the power is vested to various educational
authorities in respect of recruitment of the
teachers and non teaching staff.
29. After careful consideration of
the material on record I am of the view
that the termination order passed by the
Principal of the College in compliance of
the order of the State Government, Joint
Director and the District Inspector of
Schools are patently illegal and arbitrary.
612
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30. All the three impugned orders
need to be set aside. It is accordingly set
aside.
31. The appointment of the
petitioner has already been approved by
the District Inspector of Schools and
Regional Committee. Those order have
not been recalled or cancelled. Therefore,
there is no need to send the matter to
competent authority.
32. A direction is issued to the
respondents for continuance of petitioner,
treating the impugned orders as they have
never been passed.
33. Writ petition is allowed.
34. There shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TIPATHI, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 27102 of 2013
Sarvajeet Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.L.Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-intereston
delayed
payment
of
gratuity-no
explanation for delay given-warrants
liability of interest-direction to pay 10%
simple interest on delayed period given.
Held: Para-7
Since the date of retirement is known to the
respondents well in advance, there is no
reason for the respondents not to make
arrangement for payment of retiral benefits
to the employee well in advance so that as
soon as he retires, his retiral benefits are
paid on the date of retirement or within
reasonable time thereafter. Inaction and
inordinate delay in payment of retiral
benefits is nothing but culpable delay
warranting liability of interest on such dues.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1985 SC 356; 1987 UPLBEC 583 (SC);
(1995) 1 UPLBEC 89; AIR 1997 SC 27; (1999)
2 UPLBEC 1006 (SC); (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1599;
2001 ALJ.L.J. 2026; (2008) 1 UPLBEC 301;
1998 (1) ESC 735 (P & H); (1985) 1 SCC 429;
(2014) 8 SCC 894.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner has prayed for direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no.2 to pay 10% interest per
annum to him from 01.7.2010 to the date
of actual payment i.e. 11.11.2012 on the
amount of Rs.8,52,837/-.
3. It appears from the record that the
petitioner was appointed as Tubewell
Operator on 24.5.1977 in the office of
respondents. He retired after attaining the age
of superannuation on 30.6.2010. He received
the payment of provident fund just after his
retirement. The respondents had not made
payment of other retiral benefits like pension,
gratuity, computation of pension etc to the
petitioner. On 22.10.2012 he made a
representation before the respondent no.2 for
payment of retiral dues. The respondent no.2