ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.A.Kharadi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw for the respondents through video conference. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “A. This Honourable Court may be pleased to direct respondent’s authorities to pay the pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner with interest. B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant interim relief in terms of para 12(A) in the interest of justice. C. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to award the costs of present petition throughout. D. This Hon’ble Court would be pleased to grant such other and further releif/s as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. After filing of the petition, the respondents did not respond by filing any affidavit-in-reply and therefore, this Court [Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M.Thaker] passed the following order on 20.04.2018: “1. This matter was listed on 18.4.2018. 2. On 18.4.2018, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner retired in 2009 and for almost 6 years the respondents did not care to take any steps to pay retiral benefits. 3. The respondents neither informed the petitioner any reason for not processing her case for retiral benefits nor did the respondents inform the petitioner that she is not eligible for particular benefit and/ or the reason for such decision nor the respondents paid the retiral benefits. 4. Ultimately, somewhere in July, 2015 the petitioner filed present petition. The Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B.Pardiwala) passed below quoted order on 10.08.2015: “Let Notice be issued to the respondents returnable on 09.09.2015. Direct service is permitted.” 5. The order passed in October, 2015 shows that the process issued pursuance to the order dated 10.08.2015 was not served for sometime. Therefore, vide order dated 26.10.2015 the Court passed order to issue fresh process. It is not in dispute that after 26.10.2015 the Court's process was immediately served to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 6. However, the said respondents No.1 and 2 did not even bother to enter appearance and they, did not even care to examine the case (even after service of Notice/ process of this Court) and take steps either to enter appearance and to support or oppose the petition. 7. 1 and 2. 6. However, the said respondents No.1 and 2 did not even bother to enter appearance and they, did not even care to examine the case (even after service of Notice/ process of this Court) and take steps either to enter appearance and to support or oppose the petition. 7. The said 2 respondents did not care to come to the Court and to inform the Court atleast the reason for not paying retiral benefits to the petitioner for so many years. 8. The respondents clearly and defiantly ignored the notice of the Court. 9. On 3.8.2017, the Court was constrained to pass below quoted order: “The petitioner in this case is claiming the pensionary benefits after superannuation in the year 2009. Despite notice having been issued, nobody is appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Further perusal of the file shows that the State should be one of the parties in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner will make necessary amendment in the memorandum of this petition by impleading the State as one of the parties and thereafter, the matter to be listed on 08.08.2017.” 10. Even thereafter the said 2 respondents did not take any steps either to enter appearance and to answer the petition and to honour the Notice of the Court, much less to process the petitioner’s case for retiral benefits. 11. In the meanwhile, the Court considered it appropriate and necessary that Director of Pension should be impleaded as party respondent. Therefore, below quoted order came to be passed on 12.10.2017: “State is required to be joined as one of the respondents in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to move an application in this regard. Be filed before the next date. Matter to come up on 8th November, 2017.” 12. In pursuance of the said order the petitioner carried out the amendment on 31.10.2017 and thereafter, process came to be issued to newly added respondents i.e. Director of Pension. 13. Present state of affairs of this petition is that until on 18.4.2018, neither the respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 nor the newly added respondent no.3 (after October, 2017) has filed any reply. Therefore this Court was compelled to pass below quoted order on 18.4.2018: “The petitioner retired on superannuation in 2009. 13. Present state of affairs of this petition is that until on 18.4.2018, neither the respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 nor the newly added respondent no.3 (after October, 2017) has filed any reply. Therefore this Court was compelled to pass below quoted order on 18.4.2018: “The petitioner retired on superannuation in 2009. Since the respondents did not finalize the petitioner's case for pension and other retiral benefits for almost 6 years, the petitioner was compelled to file present petition in 2015. Almost 3 years have passed the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have neither filed reply nor even entered appearance. Though the Court called upon said two respondents vide order dated 10.8.2015, to answer the petition, until now the said two respondents have not answered the petition and they have not cared to respond the notice of this Court. Both the respondents shall personally remain present in the Court on 20.4.2018 and offer explanation for not entering appearance and for not filing reply to this petition during last three years. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the registry to the said two respondents by way of fax. Learned AGP will assist the registry by providing fax number to the registry where the order can be served. In addition the petitioner is granted permission to serve copy of this order directly to the said two respondents. The registry shall provide copy of this order to the petitioner today itself before 6.00 p.m. The petitioner shall ensure that the order is served to the said two respondents tomorrow i.e. 19.4.2018. It is clarified that if the said two respondents do not remain present on 20.4.2018 then the Court will be compelled to issue nonbailable warrant against said two respondents. S.O. to 20.4.2018. To be listed on top of the board in view of the fact the petition relates to the petitioner's claim for pension which is not paid since last 9 years.” 14. Today, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 tendered affidavit. Mr. Munshaw further requested that time until 2.5.2018 be granted so that the respondents can look into the matter and take necessary action. 15. Above mentioned details give out that for almost 9 years i.e. from 2009 (when the petitioner retired from service) until 2018, the respondents have not cared to process the case of the petitioner. 16. Mr. Munshaw further requested that time until 2.5.2018 be granted so that the respondents can look into the matter and take necessary action. 15. Above mentioned details give out that for almost 9 years i.e. from 2009 (when the petitioner retired from service) until 2018, the respondents have not cared to process the case of the petitioner. 16. Even if worst situation is to be presumed against the petitioner viz. that the petitioner is, for any reason, not eligible for pension or for any retiral benefit then also said fact should have been immediately informed to the petitioner by the concerned respondents so that if the petitioner considered the said reason unjustified or illegal then she could have taken steps to challenge the said decision of the respondents. 17. Unfortunately the respondents did not realize the position and did not bother to even send reply to the petitioner for almost 9 years and did not inform anything to the petitioner which would explain (the petitioner) the status and/ or maintainability of her claim for retiral benefits. 18. This lethargy, insensitivity and absolute inhuman approach is not acceptable. 19. Not only this, for almost 3 years i.e. from October, 2015 to April, 2018 the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have ignored the process of this Court also. 20. They did not bother to enter appearance, they did not bother to file reply and inform the Court the details about petitioner’s case. 21. Today, after the Court passed order dated 18.4.2018, the respondent Nos. 2 filed affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. 22. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate requests for further time to process. 23. If the Court grants time to the respondents in routine and mechanical manner then the Court would fail in its duty and Court's action not be justified. It is not proper for this Court to ignore the conduct of the respondents for almost 9 years during which the said respondents did not process the petitioner’s case and / or their conduct for last 3 years during which they did not care to respond to this Court’s notice. 24. In this background, in view of this Court, least that deserves to be done is to impose cost qua respondent nos. 1 and 2 for said gross delay and for ignoring this Court's Notice. 25. 24. In this background, in view of this Court, least that deserves to be done is to impose cost qua respondent nos. 1 and 2 for said gross delay and for ignoring this Court's Notice. 25. It is also necessary that the Secretary, Education Department shall look into the matter and take necessary steps (after taking into account the above facts) so that such conduct is not repeated by anyone and retired employees are not meted out such neglect and insult. The said respondents No. 1 and 2 shall pay cost to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ i.e. Rs.10,000/ each. 26. Out of the said amount, Rs.10,000/ shall be paid to the petitioner and Rs.10,000/ shall be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee. 27. The amount shall be paid on or before next day of hearing. 28. Mr. Kharadi, learned advocate stated that the petitioner will comply all instructions and extend all cooperation which the respondents informed for processing and finalizing her case for retiral benefits. S.O. to 3.5.2018.” 4. It appears that after the aforesaid order, respondents have initiated the proceedings and started attending the case of the petitioner. Three affidavits were filed on 20.04.2018, 02.05.2018 followed by 23.06.2018 and thereafter, further affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.2 on 25.06.2021 which is reproduced here-in-below: “1. The respondent No.2 most respectfully submits that the petitioner herein who was posted as Head Teacher at Lilesara Primary School, Taluka and Dist. Godhra was transferred through order dated 9.11.90 to Primary School at village Parvadi, Taluka and Dist. Godhra at a distance of just five k.mts. pursuant to a recommendation of Dist. Supt. of Police, Panchmahal through a letter dated 14.9.90 to avoid communal issue and a copy thereof is annexed as ANNEXURE-A. It is submitted that in stead of reporting at a transferred place located at a distance of five k.mts. only the petitioner herein preferred Regular Civil Suit No.570/90 in the Hon’ble Civil Court at Godhra and the Hon’ble Court issued notice on 17.1190. only the petitioner herein preferred Regular Civil Suit No.570/90 in the Hon’ble Civil Court at Godhra and the Hon’ble Court issued notice on 17.1190. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Court passed a detailed order on 30.09.91 below exhibit-5 i.e. interim relief application and directed to allow the petitioner to report for duty as Head Master at Lilesara Primary School and not to disturb her till the final disposal of Regular Civil Suit No.570/90 and a copy thereof is annexed as ANNEXURE-B. It is pertinent to note that as per the information provided by local advocate appearing for the respnt. no.2 in the Hon’ble Civil Court the said Civil Suit No.570/90 is still pending for final hearing and disposal. The respnt. no.2 submits that the petitioner herein reported for duty on 25.11.91 at the primary school at village Lelesara but proceed on sick leave for 10 days with effect from 27.1.92. It is submitted that the petitioner reported for duty on 6.2.92 but thereafter remained absent continuously with effect from 7.2.92. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was addressed 13 letters to report for duty between 25th April, 1991 to 19th September, 1994 and copies thereof are collectively annexed as ANNEXURE-C. However, as she failed to comply with the instructions and such as defied the orders of the authority it was thought fit to issue a charge sheet on 23.11.94 and a copy thereof is annexed as Annexure-D. The respnt. No.2 submits that the petitioner submitted her reply on 4.1.95 but failed to report for duty in spite of her continuation as Head Teacher at Lilesara Primary School as per the interim relief order of the Hon’ble Civil Court. The respnt. No.2 submits that as the petitioner remained totally indifferent towards her duty in spite of notices and issuance of charge sheet was ultimately ordered to face a departmental inquiry by District Development Officer, Panchmahal District Panchayat on 18.3.95. It is submitted that Deputy District Primary Education Officer, Panchmahal District Panchayat was appointed as a departmental inquiry officer and in spite of instructions she failed to attend the departmental inquiry on 18.3.95, 3.5.95, 19.6.95, 30.6.95 and 17.7.95. It is submitted that thereafter there was no progress in departmental inquiry due to non-co-operation of the petitioner. It is submitted that Deputy District Primary Education Officer, Panchmahal District Panchayat was appointed as a departmental inquiry officer and in spite of instructions she failed to attend the departmental inquiry on 18.3.95, 3.5.95, 19.6.95, 30.6.95 and 17.7.95. It is submitted that thereafter there was no progress in departmental inquiry due to non-co-operation of the petitioner. It is humbly stated that subsequently petitioner herein preferred present Special Civil Application before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat praying for retiral benefits with interest. The respnt. No.2 submits that his predecessor has filed affidavit in reply and thereafter further affidavit in reply affirmed on 2.5.18 as well as on 23.6.18. It is states that pending hearing of the present Special Civil Application inquiry officer addressed another letter dated 21.4.18 to attend hearing on 24.4.18 but again petitioner did not co-operate and, therefore, he submitted his report dated 1.5.18 holding that the charges levelled against petitioner were proved and a copy of the report is annexed as Annexure-E. 2. The respnt. No2 submits that thereafter considering her unauthorised absence from 6.2.92 and the administrative instructions dated 20.2.07 addressed by Under Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat to the Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar drawing attention to a Notification dated 1.12.06 issued by Finance Dept., it was thought fit by the then District Primary Education Officer, Panchmahal District Panchayat to pass order dated 8.6.18 to treat the petitioner as resigned with effect from 6.2.92 and copies of notification dtd. 1.12.06 and order dated 8.6.18 are annexed as Annexure F and G respectively. 3. The respnt. No.2 submits that the petitioner herein has not come forward with an application for the benefit of General Provident Fund. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is not entitled to a benefit of leave encashment in absence of earned leave as she was unauthorisedly absent till she attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.09. It is stated that in view of the impugned order dated 8.6.18 passed by respnt. No.2 herein petitioner is not entitled to any other retiral benefit and GCSR Rules (Pension) 2002 annexed as Annexure-H.” 5. From the averments made in the further affidavit-in-reply, it appears that respondent No.2 has passed the order dated 08.06.2018 whereby the petitioner is stated to have resigned from 06.02.1992 in view of the facts stated in the aforesaid affidavit. 6. Learned advocate Mr. From the averments made in the further affidavit-in-reply, it appears that respondent No.2 has passed the order dated 08.06.2018 whereby the petitioner is stated to have resigned from 06.02.1992 in view of the facts stated in the aforesaid affidavit. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Kharadi stated at the bar that the petitioner has already challenged the order dated 08.06.2018 before the appellate authority and the appeal is pending. He therefore, prays that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner raised in this petition, this petition may be disposed of at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.06.2018 and further keeping the right of the petitioner to claim the pensionary benefits alive in any other proceedings which may be initiated by the petitioner at the appropriate time before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above statement, the petition is disposed of at this stage with aforesaid liberty. Rule is discharged.