Uttarakhand High Court
Ramesh Chandra Singh Chaudhary vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 14 June, 2017
Bench: K.M. Joseph, Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 116 (SB) of 2016
Ramesh Chandra Singh Chaudhary. ........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others. ...... Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Ayush Negi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Brief Holder for State of Uttarakhand / respondents.
Coram:
Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, CJ.
Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
Hon. K. M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari the order dated 03.03.2016 passed by respondent no. 2.
ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant / allow the session benefit to the petitioner according to the Govt. orders iii. In the alternate, issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant salary / remuneration for the work done by the petitioner from November 2015 to February, 2016."
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. Petitioner was working as Principal in Government Inter College, Selakui, Sahaspur, District Dehradun. His normal date of retirement as per superannuation is 15.10.2015. It appears that on his own request, he was transferred on 02.03.2015 to the post of 2 Deputy Director, SCERT, Dehradun. The Complaint of the petitioner is that though petitioner made request for getting extension of his service under the Government Orders but it has been turned down. Further case of the petitioner is that actually petitioner continued to work beyond date of superannuation i.e. for the period of four months, for which he is not paid salary. He has not even been given pensionary benefits.
4. Matter received attention of the Authorities and order has been passed rejecting the request. The substance of the order would be as follows:
5. Government Order No. 329/XXIV-2/10-9(11)/2008 dated 08.04.2011 provides that any teacher /headmaster/ principal working in the Government High School and Government aided Primary School / Junior High School/ High School, can be given benefit of academic session, if he is going to retire between the education session subject to following three conditions being satisfied:
i. Work and conduct of the concerned teacher / headmaster / principal is remain satisfactory and there is no adverse entry.
ii. He is physically and mentally fit.
iii. He is teaching any subject regularly.
6. The stand of the Authorities appears to be that benefit of academic session is given to teachers/headmasters /principals only in the interest of students. The government order dated 14.06.2012 provides that application has to be given before 31st March of the last academic year. Petitioner was found to be working as Deputy Director upto 31.07.2015 and it is stated that there is no provision to give benefit of academic session to employees posted at DIET / SCERT.3
7. We heard Mr. Ayush Negi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
8. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand also would reiterate that this Court may note that petitioner though working as Principal, on his own request, was transferred to SCERT as Deputy Director, which admittedly is not a teaching job. Therefore, before the cut off date i.e. 31.03.2015, no doubt, when petitioner made application on 19.03.2015 was not working as Principal. It is important to notice further that petitioner was not transferred on public interest but on his own request while he was working in the Educational Institution.
Merely by moving application within time limit may not itself give right to petitioner to get session benefit. Therefore, reasons rejecting the application cannot be faulted as such.
9. Then remains two points. Firstly, it is contended by the petitioner that he worked as Principal for four months after the date of superannuation and is not paid salary. Secondly, it is contended that he is not being paid pensionary benefits, for which he is entitled on the basis of his retirement.
10. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact that he was working, after date of superannuation, can be proved by the fact that letter to hand over charge was sent to him only in February, 2016. With regard to the payment of salary, since petitioner claimed that he worked after 31.10.2015, we leave it open to the petitioner to represent this matter before respondent no. 1. If the petitioner makes representation to respondent no. 1 within one week from today regarding non payment of salary for the period which he had allegedly worked, then respondent no. 1 will take decision on the representation strictly in accordance with law within one month thereafter. We make it crystal clear that we have not expressed any opinion in favour of the petitioner, as such in this regard.
411. Regarding the complaint of the petitioner (though there is no prayer as such in the writ petition) that pension is withheld, if that is so, same will be released, strictly in accordance with law, at the earliest.
12. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Singh, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
14.06.2017 14.06.2017
SKS