Judgment : PC: 1. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by 22 Teachers who attained the age of superannuation after having worked in private aided schools. The reliefs that have been sought are : (i) to direct the Respondents to refund the amounts illegally recovered from their retiral dues together with interest; (ii) to compute the retiral dues of the Petitioners on the basis that they were trained teachers and not untrained teachers; and (iii) a direction that the action of the Respondents in purporting to refix the salary of the Petitioners after their retirement from the service, on the basis that they were untrained teachers, is unlawful. Exhibit-A to the petition is a chart which contains the qualifications and length of service rendered by each one of the 22 Petitioners. Each of the teachers have lengths of service ranging between 23 years and 36 years. 2. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation by the Deputy Education Officer, it has been stated that until their date of retirement from service, the Petitioners were paid the salary of trained teachers. The Corporation stated that the pay scales for trained teachers and untrained teachers were distinct. The Petitioners, it was urged, were entitled only to the payment of pension in the untrained teachers’ pay grade and the Corporation had granted minimum pension to all the Petitioners except the Fifteenth Petitioner on that basis. However, it has been stated that the Corporation had to recover the excess payment made to the Petitioners representing the difference between the salary of an untrained teacher and the actual salary received by each one of them. This amount, it was stated, the Corporation intended to recover from the Gratuity, Pension and other retiral benefits. According to the Corporation, all the Petitioners before the Court save and except for two, were included in the list of 199 teachers of private primary schools, who had been confirmed in service though they had not passed D.Ed. within the prescribed period. The issue of releasing pensionary payments to them was under consideration of the Additional Municipal Commissioner and a decision was taken to pay the pension to all such teachers. According to the Municipal Corporation, the required qualification for a teacher of a private school, was completion of two years D.Ed. within the prescribed period. The issue of releasing pensionary payments to them was under consideration of the Additional Municipal Commissioner and a decision was taken to pay the pension to all such teachers. According to the Municipal Corporation, the required qualification for a teacher of a private school, was completion of two years D.Ed. course, whereas, save and except for the First Petitioner, the other Petitioners had completed the Diploma of only one year. 3. During the pendency of these proceedings, a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 10 April 2012 directed the Additional Municipal Commissioner (City) to hear the Petitioners and to take a decision in the matter. 4. Accordingly, on 21 July 2012, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Education) has passed an order. The order of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner accepts the entitlement of all the Petitioners except the First Petitioner (Mrs.Hemalatha Varadan) and the Eighth Petitioner (Smt.Madhavi Pradhan). The Deputy Municipal Commissioner has specifically held that each one of the Petitioners, save and except for the First and Eighth Petitioners, had duly cleared the educational qualification of the erstwhile S.S.C. coupled with the First Year of a University Degree course after which they had passed a Diploma in Education from the University of Mumbai. On this basis, each one of the Petitioners has been held to be a trained teacher. 5. As regards the First and Eighth Petitioners, the learned counsel appearing on their behalf states that liberty may be granted to those Petitioners to pursue separate proceedings in accordance with law to challenge the impugned order dated 21 July 2012 insofar as it holds that they are not eligible. Leave to do so is granted and all the rights and contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open. 6. As regards the remaining 22 Petitioners, it is evident that they were trained teachers. The Municipal Corporation cannot dispute that position in view of the order of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner dated 20 July 2012. The affidavit of the Municipal Corporation is clearly reflective of a palpable act of arbitrariness in depriving the Petitioners of their retiral dues for long years on the clearly erroneous basis that they had not completed the required qualifications. The teachers joined service in the decades of the 1970s and 1980s. They retired from service on different dates between 2003 and 2010. The teachers joined service in the decades of the 1970s and 1980s. They retired from service on different dates between 2003 and 2010. They were paid salaries as trained teachers. There was absolutely no justification to withhold the payment of the retiral dues. After the teachers retired from service and even before this Court, the Municipal Corporation purported to rely on a submission that though the teachers have been paid their salaries as trained teachers, they were untrained teachers and that consequently recoveries would have to be made from their pensionary dues. It was on this unsustainable basis that they were paid only the minimum pension on the footing that they were untrained teachers. It needs no more elaboration to demonstrate the incorrect premise of the Municipal Corporation, since the order of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Education) itself indicates that the remaining twenty teachers were trained teachers. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner has made a detailed and elaborate consideration and he is correct in holding that the Twenty teachers are trained teachers. We also direct that no question of recovery would arise and none could have arisen. The teachers had worked in service and were paid their salaries for the period when they served as employees. It is impossible to comprehend as to how any rational body could have withheld pension on the threat of making recoveries. Such a course of conduct is unlawful. 7. The payment of retiral dues is not a largesse conferred on an employee retiring from long years of continuous service. To deprive an employee of the rightful entitlement of pension is to affect very seriously the right to live and the right in property that inheres in the right to pension. We are accordingly of the view that the payment of interest would be warranted, at the rate of Nine Per Cent. Since the dates would held to be verified in each case, we will direct the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Education) to carry out that exercise. 8. We are accordingly of the view that the payment of interest would be warranted, at the rate of Nine Per Cent. Since the dates would held to be verified in each case, we will direct the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Education) to carry out that exercise. 8. We accordingly dispose of the petition in terms of the following directions: (i) The arrears of the pensionary and retiral dues on the basis that the Petitioners (except the First and Eighth Petitioners) are trained teachers, as held by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Education) in his order dated 21 July 2012, shall be paid over to the Petitioners within a period of one month from today; (ii) The First and Eighth Petitioners would be at liberty to institute fresh proceedings to challenge the order of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Education) holding that they were not eligible as a trained teachers; (iii) The Petitioners would be at liberty to submit a further representation to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Education) for the payment of interest. The facts of each individual case shall be verified and interest shall be allowed at 9% p.a. on the retiral dues and arrears from the relevant date till the date of payment. This exercise shall be completed within one month from the date when an authenticated copy of this order is produced on the record of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Education). Payment of interest shall be disbursed within one month thereafter. 9. The petition is accordingly disposed in these terms. There shall be no order as to costs.