JUDGMENT
R. B. Misra, J.
1. Heard Sri N.K. Saxena, along with Arti Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State.
2. In this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.8.1980 and by amendment application the order dated 14.8.1999 passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur has also been challenged. According to the petitioner the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.7.1920 and he was appointed as a mechanic in the workshop of Physics Department. In due course of time, he was promoted to the post of Lab Assistant and thereafter as Senior Lab Assistant and petitioner was to attain -60 years on 31.7.1980, however, the petitioner worked unauthorisedly beyond the date of superannuation, i.e., 14.7.1980 with the connivance of the University authority and when it was noticed that the petitioner had already completed the age of superannuation then he was asked to submit the date of birth certificate which he deliberately avoided. The petitioner did not submit authentic proof of date of birth and, therefore, cleverly he rendered resignation in the year 1983. By this petition the petitioner has started claim for getting pensionary benefits.
3. The counter-affidavit has been filed, according to which petitioner has already received the contributory provident fund and in view of the Government Orders and petitioner has not disclosed his permanent address even. In these circumstances his service book could also not been prepared, however, taking the authority in good faith the petitioner had continued beyond the age of superannuation and has received the salary. Petitioner had tendered his resignation on 1.4.1983 as indicated in para 5 of the counter-affidavit. According to the Government Order dated 24.1.1984 as enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the person is to be retired at the age of 60 years under Clause 5 of G.O. which reads as under :
“Ish shasanadesh dwara
sweekrit sabidhaon ka labh keval
unnhi shikshannottar
karmchariyon ko dai hoga jo apna
anshdayi bhavishya nidhi khata
mein dinak 31 December, 1983 tak
vishwauidyaloyo/ prabankiya/
rajya sarkar ka anshdan ke rup
mein jama samasth dhanrashi ush
par arjit avem sanklit uyaz ki
sampurn dhanrashi sahit shasan
ka prapti lekha shirshak “077-
Shiksha-Cha-Samanya (AA) Annya
praptiya (12) prakeern” mein tatha
apne anshdan ki samasth
dhanrasht ush par arjit avem
sanklit uyaz sahit nikshep lekha
shirshak “838-Esthanta Nidhiyon
ka nikshep anya swayataya
nikayon ka nikshep (kha)-Annya
sahayit sikshan sansthano ke
school / Mahavidyalon/
Vishvidyalon ka shikshak auem
shikshanottar karmchariyon ki
bhabishya nidihon ka lane dane
ka antargat ekmusht jama
karvayenge. Uprokth jama honey
wall dhanrashi pratayak dasha
mein sambandhit shikshanottar
karmchari ka vikalp ka dinak se 90
din ke anndar rajkiya kosh mein
jama ho jani chhahiye. Unnhey
Dinak 1 January, 1984 se
Vishvidyaldyon aanshdan ke roop
mein koyee dhanrashi Anumanya
na hogi. Bhavishya mein aaisey
shikshannottar karmchariyon ke
vetan se pratimah kati gayee
samanya bhavishya nidhi ke
dhanrashi niyamit roop se esee
niskchep lekha shirshak ke
anntargath Jama hotee rahengee.
Vishwavidyalon ka vittha adhikari
ess sambandh mein tathkal
aabhisthya karvahi surUshch.it
karayengey.”
This order does not disclose any detail whether the petitioner has tendered resignation. In these circumstances as per G.O, No, 6895/15-(15)-1983 (7)/82, dated 24.1.1984 the petitioner was otherwise not entitled to the pensionery benefits. However, the petitioner has mislead the university and has not come to the Court with clean hand.
4. It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. (Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 ; Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 16O8 ; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779 ; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141 ; Chitra Kumari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237 and State of U. P, and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, 2001 (2) AWC 1399 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 1298].
5. In Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684. the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :
“The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law.”
Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti and Anr. v. Prakash N. Rudrakar and Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18,
6. In Re : Sanjiv Datta, (1995) 3 SCC 619, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed as under :
“Some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession as is evident from the filing Of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings…….. they do not realize the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the Court but do positive disservice to the litigants and create embarrassing situation with Court leading to avoidable, unpleasantness and delay in disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system.”
7. We have put large number of questions to the learned counsel for the petitioner Involving the facts and law. However, It is very sorry state of affairs that he could not render any assistance whatsoever nor he could furnish any explanation as to why a copy of the agreement has not been filed and if it contains the arbitral clause how the writ petition has been filed.
8. In Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Takur Kalyan Singh and Anr., AIR 1963 SC 146, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of proper assistance to the Court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless lawyer satisfies the Court that there is some balance in his client’s favour to alter the situation, the Court is not able to decide the case. It is not for the Court itself to decide the controversy. The Court observed as under :
“…………….He (counsel) cannot just raise objections in his memorandum of appeal and leave it to the appellate court to give its decision on those points after going through the record and determining the correctness thereof. It is not for the appellate court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points.”
While deciding the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court placed reliance upon judgment of Privy Council in Mst. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarus, AIR 1921 PC 55, wherein it had been observed as under :
“In every appeal it is incumbent upon the appellants to show some reason why the judgment appealed from should be disturbed, there must be some balance in their favour when all the circumstances are considered to justify the alteration of the judgment that stands. Their Lordships are unable to find that this duty has been discharged.”
9. In T, C.-Mathai and Anr. v. District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Kerala, (1999) 3 SCO 614, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed :
“The work in a Court of law is a serious and responsible function. The primary duty of a …………… Court is to administer…………… justice. Any lax or wayward approach, if adopted ; towards the issues involved in the case, can cause serious consequences for the parties concerned ……………. in the adversary system which is now being followed in India, both in civil and criminal litigation, it is very necessary that the Court gets proper assistance from both sides.”
10. The Rajasthan High Court in Bhola Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1999 Raj 242, held as under :
“………………….the quality of the Judgment depends upon the assistance rendered at the Bar. The Judge cannot take the entire responsibility of laying down a correct law unilaterally without any assistance of the learned members of the Bar. The Judge cannot afford to retire from chamber and sit in the library and find out the case law on the issues involved in every case and what is the occasion to do anything in a case where the pleadings are so vague as the petition itself cannot be entertained.”
11. In D. P. Chadha v. Triyugt Narain Mishra and Ors., 2001 (1) AWC 407 (SC) : (2001) 2 SCC 221, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :
“……………..Mutual confidence in the discharge of duties and cordial relations between Bench and Bar smoothen the movement of the chariot. As responsible officers of the Court, as they are called and rightly, the counsel have an overall obligation of assisting the Courts in a Just and proper manner in the just and proper administration of justice ………………. A lawyer must not hesitate in telling the Court the correct position of law when it is undisputed and admits of no exception …………….. This obligation of a counsel flows from the confidence reposed by the Court in the counsel appearing for any of the two sides. A counsel, being an officer of the Court, shall apprise the Judge with the correct position of law whether for or against either party.”
12. In view of the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Arbitrator has a power to grant interim relief. Moreso, in view of the provisions of Section 9, C.P.C. the civil court can grant interim relief at the initial stage even prior to resorting to the proceeding of arbitration.
13. In Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. N.E.P.C. India Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 565, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a party can approach the civil court even prior to commencement of the arbitration proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. There has been a complete departure in this respect if compared with the provisions contained in Arbitration Act, 1940. In large number of cases it was found very difficult to serve the respondent, therefore, the Legislature considered it necessary that the provision be made in the Act, which could enable a party to get interim measures urgently in order to protect its interest.
14. The Court determines as issue on applying its mind on the facts/ pleadings taken by the parties and submissions made on their behalf on legal as well as factual issues. In absence of any factual foundation laid by the party concerned, and in absence of proper legal assistance on its behalf it is neither desirable nor possible for the Court to adjudicate upon as to whether the order impugned is worth sustainable in law. The party has to place whole case before the Court and challenged properly the correctness of the order impugned. If a party fails to do so, or if proper assistance is not rendered by the counsel, the Court need not decide the case at all. The petitioner had already worked beyond three years therefore, he is not entitled to get relief rather he has served for three years and the authorities if so advise may recover the money from the petitioner.
15. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.