(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.7.2009 allowed the Letters Patent Appeal of the applicant and provided that the applicant is deemed to have retired from service with effect from 31.12.2005. The respondents were accordingly directed to process the pension papers of the applicant and issue necessary pension payment order within three months from the date of the order of the Division Bench. The applicant was also held entitled to interest on the terminal benefits at the rate of 10% per annum from 1.1.2007 till payment. The applicant was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of pension from the date such amount became payable.
2. Learned counsel further pointed out that such decision of the Division Bench was carried in appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, however, dismissed the S.L.P. by an order dated 17.2.2011. Despite this, the respondents have not yet paid pension and other retiral benefits.
3. We are prima facie of the opinion that the directions contained in order dated 24.7.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2009 were sufficiently clear. Such decision was carried in appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court also dismissed the SLP on 17.2.2011. Nearly one year has already passed since then.
4. If the respondents have not complied with the directions of the Division Bench and there is no reasonable explanation for not doing so, we would take a very serious view of the matter.
5. Under the circumstances, by issuing NOTICE to the respondents returnable on 5th March 2012, it is further provided that if by the returnable date, the directions of the Division Bench contained in the order dated 24.7.2009 are not fully complied with, the responsible officers from the office of the Director of Pension and Provident Fund and also from the office of the Commissioner of Health, Medical Services and Medication Education, shall remain personally present before the Court. Even if the directions have fully been complied, affidavit shall be filed explaining why the respondents took such a long long time in doing so.
Direct service is permitted.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (C.L.
SONI, J.) omkar Top