The petitioner, a Professor in the second respondent University, retired from service on 19.06.2014 after attaining the age of superannuation. His grievance is that so far his retirement benefits have not been settled. This Court, on an earlier occasion, has disposed of numerous cases involving the second respondent with a direction that the University shall frame a policy and pay the terminal benefits to all the retired employees of the University as expeditiously as possible, disregarding the defence offered by them in all the writ petitions that it has been suffering from paucity of funds. 2. In so far as the present writ petition is concerned, when this Court proposed to dispose of the writ petition on the same lines as has been indicated above, the learned WPC 28340/14 2 counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's case stands on a different footing. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is to be paid certain arrears of pay and allowances, which, in fact, were approved by the University through Exhibit P4. A perusal of Exhibit P4 indicates that the said arrears come to ` 56,509/-.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner at the earliest in the manner indicated in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.13277/14 (Exhibit P5), duly taking into account Exhibits P1 to P4, which reflect the amounts due to the petitioner.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv