Allowed

(Smt) K.Amar Jyothi v. The Director of School Education

Telangana HC20 Dec 2012WP/3160/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking regularization as a Hindi Pandit in a grant-in-aid post. The Court directed absorption with seniority and notional increments from January 1981, despite an earlier order suggesting 1989, due to ignored evidence of continuous service.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be absorbed into Hindi Pandit grant-in-aid post from January 1981; entitled to seniority, notional increments, monetary benefits, and pensionary benefits.

(Smt) K.Amar Jyothi Vs The Director of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3160 of 1999

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order directing the respondents to treat her as regularly appointed to a grant-in-aid post in third respondent’s institution from 1979 onwards.

¶5

It is not necessary to go into other details, but it would be sufficient to note that the petitioner is relying upon an order dated 10.08.1994 passed by the Director of School Education, Hyderabad, who is the first respondent.

¶6

The above order dated 10.08.1994 of the first respondent would read that injustice has been caused to the petitioner and the management of the third respondent institution has agreed to appoint the petitioner in a regular S.G.B.T. grant-in-aid post, which was vacant from 08.05.1989 following the death of one Smt.R.Sarojini. It may also be noted that the entire order of the first respondent referred to supra reads that it is based upon the reports of the District Educational Officers concerned and injustice has been done to her by the institution’s management. In that view of the matter, the first respondent issued instructions to the District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy District, i.e., the second respondent to issue necessary instructions to the Correspondent of the third respondent institution to absorb the petitioner, who is working as Hindi Pandit Grade-II in an unaided post into S.G.B.T. existing grant-in-aid post with immediate effect. Thereafter the second respondent issued proceedings dated 01.11.1994 directing the third respondent’s institution to immediately absorb the petitioner as an S.G.B.T. teacher in the existing vacancy and report compliance. In the aforesaid order of the first respondent and as well as the second respondent, the exact date from which the petitioner is eligible for

¶7

absorption is not made clear.

¶8

This writ petition was earlier disposed of on 06.02.2008 directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been appointed against a regular vacant post of Hindi Pandit Grade-II in the third respondent’s institution with effect from 08.05.1989 and it was also held that the petitioner is entitled for seniority in the said post with effect from 08.05.1989 and also notional increments from that date, but not entitled to any past pay and emoluments from 08.05.1989 to 19.09.1994. The respondents preferred a writ appeal - W.A.No.11 of 2012 against the said order and that the said writ appeal was allowed on 28.03.2012 setting aside the aforesaid order passed in the writ petition and remanding the matter with a direction to decide it after allowing the Government to come on record as it was not a party earlier. The Government have been subsequently impleaded as a party respondent and that is how the writ petition has again come up for hearing.

¶9

It may be noted that though the writ petition is of 1999 and posted today under the caption “For Dismissal”, the Government have not filed counter and earlier only respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counters. The plea of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the arguments of learned Government Pleader in substance is that the petitioner is not eligible to be absorbed in grant-in-aid post from 08.05.1989 and at best it can be only from the date of the orders of the first respondent directing her absorption i.e., from 10.08.1994. It should be noted that this date ‘08.05.1989’ appears to be the date on which the management of the school agreed to take the petitioner into grant-in-aid post and that is mentioned in the order dated 10.08.1994 of the first respondent. In fact, this Court also earlier, while disposing of this writ petition, directed the petitioner to be absorbed from 08.05.1989 and granted notional increments.

¶10

It may, however, be noted that in the order dated 10.08.1994 of the

¶11

first respondent, while considering the case of the petitioner and on the report dated 24.03.1992 of the second respondent, the following facts have been noticed by the first respondent and it is better to reproduce that relevant para in the order of the first respondent which reads as under:-

¶12

“The District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy district in his letter Rc.No.422/B3/85 dated 24.3.1992 while enclosing a copy of the enquiry report of the Deputy Educational Officer, Rajendranagar, vide his letter No.72/Dy.EO/88-89 dated 2.6.1989 has stated that the records of the Upper Primary School, Ramakrishna, were not available because they were destroyed. However, he has verified pay rolls submitted by the correspondent and recommended by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Rajendranagar, the following facts are noticed. The salary of Smt.K.Amarjyothi, Hindi Pandit Gr.II was claimed in the scale of Rs.530-850/545/- from January 1981 to June 1981 from grant-in-aid. In July, 1981 Smt.Anantalakshmi’s name was included and was shown appointed from 1.7.1981 indicating that Smt. Amarajyothi had resigned on 30.6.1981. But no recorded evidence was made available to the extent that the teacher in question had resigned her job.”

¶13

The above portion clearly shows that the salary of the petitioner i.e., Smt. K.Amar Jyothi, Hindi Pandit Grade-II was claimed in the scale of Rs.530-850/545/- from January, 1981 to June, 1981 from grant-in-aid post and thereafter in July, 1981 one Smt.Anantalakshmi’s name was included, who was shown as appointed from 10.07.1981 indicating that Smt. Amar Jyothi has resigned on 30.06.1981 and it is also mentioned that no recorded evidence was made available to the extent that the petitioner has resigned her job. Having noticed the above aspect, respondent Nos.1 and 2 now come up with a case that the petitioner is not eligible for absorption and regularization from 08.05.1989. It may be noted that the above facts mentioned in the order of the first respondent itself would show that the petitioner’s rights were ignored and her case regarding the date from which she was regularized or absorbed in the grant-in-aid post was unjustifiably rejected. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should have been directed to be absorbed in the grant-in-aid post in the third respondent’s institution at least with

¶14

notional increments with seniority right from January, 1981 by the first respondent. No reasons are forthcoming in the first respondent’s order as to why he refused to grant that relief to the petitioner.

¶15

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be absorbed into Hindi Pandit grant-in-aid post from January, 1981 and she shall be entitled to seniority and notional increments from January, 1981 to 10.09.1994 and she will be entitled to monetary benefits from 10.09.1994 till the date of her retirement, which is stated to be August 2008. The petitioner shall also be eligible for pensionary benefits and other benefits to which she may be entitled as per service rules. This Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed in the above terms. The authorities shall take the follow up action and ensure that necessary relief in terms of the above order is granted to the petitioner within six months from today. No costs.

¶16

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

_________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 20^th December, 2012 RENU/GHN

(Smt) K.Amar Jyothi v. The Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(Smt) K.Amar Jyothi v. The Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Project Officer, Itda, for ( Ptg-Chenchu), Vs R. Lingamaiah

The Project Officer, Itda, for Vs K. Sekhara Reddy

The Project Officer, Itda for (Ptg-Chenchu) Vs P. Subbanna S/o K. Sunkaiah

V. Ramprasad Babu, Vs Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam

L.Rami Reddy, Vs The Secretary

M.Gangadhar, Vs Divisional Security Commissioner (Mg)