JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.N. Shastri for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. R.A. Mishra for the respondent No. 1. Perused the record. 2. Petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of Gujarat Civil Services Rules, 2002 so also Provisions of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 and also the Scheme of Voluntary Retirement, 1978. Petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to declare that petitioner has deemed to have been retired on the expiry of notice and further to release all the retiral benefits like gratuity, pension, leave salary etc. with interest. Thereby, petitioner has prayed for a specific declaration that petitioner be treated voluntary retired from services w.e.f. 31.12.1994 in accordance with the communication dated 1.10.1994 and direction to the respondents to release the petitioners as if he retired on 31.12.1994 and thereby to pay retiral benefits with interest. 3. Petitioner has also prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 19.12.2011 by the District Primary Education Officer, Junagadh whereby petitioner has been denied pensionary benefits considering that his services are only for 19 years, 5 months and 4 days. 4. It is undisputed fact that on 1.10.1994, petitioner has given three months notice to the respondent authority for voluntary retirement contending that he has completed 20 years of qualifying services from the date of his appointment i.e. 30.12.1972. It is settled legal position that respondents have to respond to such notice before expiry of statutory period of 90 days either to come forward with a specific case that voluntary retirement is not accepted or to confirm the voluntary retirement with relevant service benefits. Thereby, as per Rules, if respondent does not respond within 90 days, petitioner would be considered as retired on expiry of notice period and would be entitled to all retiral benefits including gratuity, pension, leave salary and pension etc. It seems that initially in the year 1998, petitioner has filed one Special Civil Application No. 2702 of 1998 but the same was withdrawn so as to file the representation before the respondent. Therefore, petitioner has filed one representation on 07.04.1998. However, such representation was not decided by the respondent and, therefore, petitioner had no option but to file another Special Civil Application No. 6966 of 1998. Therefore, petitioner has filed one representation on 07.04.1998. However, such representation was not decided by the respondent and, therefore, petitioner had no option but to file another Special Civil Application No. 6966 of 1998. In such Special Civil Application, the Coordinate bench has observed in its order dated 21.03.2011 that again petitioner has disclosed before the Court that petitioner would withdraw the petition for the purpose of making representation before the competent authority. At the relevant time, learned advocate Mr. R.A. Mishra appearing for respondent No. 1 has also prayed that on such representation being moved by the petitioner, authority will consider it in accordance with law keeping in mind the fact that petitioner has served the institution for several years. Therefore, the Court has permitted withdrawal of the petition and thereby to move the respondent authority within six weeks of such order with direction to respondents to decide the same as far as possible within three months. It is also observed that either side will be at liberty to move this Curt in the event of any such requirement by way of a fresh petition. 5. Pursuant to such direction, the petitioner has filed representation before the respondents on 26.3.2011. However, after such representation, respondents have passed impugned order only on 19.12.2011. Thereby, since earlier direction to decide the representation within three months was not complied with by the respondents, in between petitioner has no option, but to file a contempt petition being Misc. Civil Application No. 2025 of 2011, but it was also withdrawn on 6.9.2011 so as to file a substantial petition as observed by the Co-ordinate Bench in order dated 21.3.2011. However, before the impugned order dated 19.12.2011 i.e. on 17.10.2011, the petitioner has preferred the present petition for certain directions and meanwhile, when by order dated 19.12.2011, respondents have confirmed that petitioner has not completed the qualifying service for entitlement of pension, petitioner has amended the pleadings as discussed herein above. 6. Therefore, the only issue which remains to be decided now in this petition is to the effect that whether services of the petitioner is qualified for granting pension as per the Government Rules or not. 6. Therefore, the only issue which remains to be decided now in this petition is to the effect that whether services of the petitioner is qualified for granting pension as per the Government Rules or not. Though pleadings run into number of pages, the basic facts, which are not in dispute and as disclosed in note dated 10.8.2011, copy of which is produced at Annexure-SRJ-1 at page 251 is to the effect that when service-book of the petitioner is placed before the competent authority, it reveals that petitioner has worked from 30.12.1972 till 1.6.1992 with the respondents and to that extent, there is no dispute that petitioner has worked for 19 years and six months. However, thereafter i.e. from 2.6.1992 till the date of his show-cause notice for voluntary retirement, it is the case of the respondents that petitioner has remained unauthorisedly absent from duties and therefore, that period cannot be considered as on duties and therefore, the petitioner has not completed the qualifying service for claiming pension. However, while recording such details, it has come on record that petitioner has shown the reason for his absence from 2.6.1992, disclosing that there was harassment of particular class of people at the Village Gorej where he was posted at the relevant time and therefore, he could not attend the school and that the Principal of the school has lodged a complaint regarding such harassment by local people before the police. If such fact is taken into consideration, then, primarily, it is for the employer - respondents to verify that whether there was any such incidence of harassment or not and that whether Principal has lodged a complaint or not. Because, if any employee is unable to remain present on duty because of some harassment by local people, then, it is the duty of the head of the department and the employer to verify such fact and to ensure that the situation is comfortable so that his employees can serve there. 7. Because, if any employee is unable to remain present on duty because of some harassment by local people, then, it is the duty of the head of the department and the employer to verify such fact and to ensure that the situation is comfortable so that his employees can serve there. 7. At present, irrespective of such concept, one another fact is available on record in the form of communication by Taluka Development Officer to the District Primary Education Officer at Annexure-H (page No. 193) dated 13.3.1992 wherein it is stated that from 3.12.1991 to 31.12.1994 the petitioner was absent for 823 days and respective number of days for particular month is stated in paragraph 1 itself, whereby petitioner was absent for a day in the month of May, 1993 for 10 days in the month of June, 1993 for 55 days between 8.12.1993 to 31.1.1994, 17 days between 3.2.1994 to 19.2.1994, whereas he was absent for 92 days between 20.2.1994 to 31.12.1994. If it is so, then, even if we consider the minimum number of working days between 200 - 250 days, now, it becomes clear that petitioner was absent for more that 100 days and therefore, he has certainly worked for more than 100 days between the period from May, 1993 to December, 1994. If is so, the calculation for qualifying service disclosed in the impugned order seems to be incorrect when the impugned order specifically discloses that petitioner has worked only for 19 years, five months and four days between 30.12.1972 to 1.6.1992. Now, it becomes clear that the District Primary Education Officer has failed to appreciate the period of duties performed by the petitioner between 21.5.1993 till 31.12.1994, which was certainly more than 200 days. Therefore, if we add those 200 days in the calculation as per the impugned order, then, now, it becomes clear that petitioner has worked for more than 20 years or atleast for more than 19 years and six months, so as to consider his services as qualified for pension pursuant to provision of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 80 of Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002, which provides that in calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of year equal to six months and above shall be treated as a complete year and reckoned as qualifying service. 8. 8. In view of such facts and circumstances, when there is nothing on record to prove otherwise that petitioner has not served at all for more than 19 years and six months, I do not see any reason to confirm the impugned order whereby pensionary benefit and other retirement benefit has been refused to the petitioner. If we peruse the impugned order, an attempt was made to show that petitioner has remained unauthorisedly absent beyond the period, which is considered by the competent authority i.e. 19 years, five months and four days and therefore, he is not entitled to pension and that during such unauthorised absence, as per the application received by the department, petitioner was practicing as an Ayurvedic Doctor at Rajkot. However, if such information is received by way of any application from some person, then, practically, respondents have to initiate a Departmental Inquiry by conveying the petitioner that they have received such information, but instead of following the prescribed rules and procedure for such purpose, the respondents have straightaway without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, determined in the impugned order that petitioner was practicing as an Ayurvedic Doctor and therefore, they believed that he must not have remained present on duty and thereby, they considered him as unauthorisedly absent and denied the pensionary benefit. 9. In view of above facts and circumstances, the other pleadings and evidence are now not much material. Therefore, now, it becomes clear from available documents on record that petitioner has certainly worked for more than 20 years or atleast for more than 19 years and six months and thereby, pursuant to rules referred herein above, when he is entitled to pensionary benefit, there is no option, but to quash the impugned order and to allow this petition. 10. In view of above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. Thereby, the impugned order dated 19.12.2011 is hereby quashed and set-aside, resulting into confirmation that petitioner has completed the qualifying service for pensionary benefits and therefore, now, respondents shall release all pensionary benefits as well as other terminal benefits, gratuity, salary, revision of pay, provident fund etc. in favour of the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of writ of this judgment. in favour of the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of writ of this judgment. However, considering the typical facts and circumstances emerging from record, though at present, there is no direction to pay interest on any such arrears, it is directed that if retirement benefits and pension is not released within four months from the date of receipt of writ of this judgment, then, respondents shall be liable to pay 9% interest on entire amount right from the date from which such amount is due. 11. Respondent No. 1 shall forward relevant papers for compliance of such order to the concerned authority at the earliest without fail. 12. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct service is permitted.