RADHA SHARMA Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 9th April, 2008 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "The Tribunal") in OA No. 1843/2007 whereby the request of the Petitioner for the grant extension to continue in service w.e.f 1st April, 2006 to 30th September, 2008, after retirement, on the basis of her being a State Awardee with all consequential benefits including back wages and interest thereon, has been rejected.

(2.) The Petitioner had joined as a Junior Home Science Teacher with Respondent on 11th August, 1967. On 4th February, 1974, she was promoted as a Senior domestic Science Teacher. In the year 1989, Petitioner was awarded State award by the Delhi Administration for her meritorious/outstanding service by the Lt. Governor of Delhi. Prior to her retirement, Petitioner made various representations to the Respondents seeking extension in service for two years with all relevant documents which entitled her for extension. On 30th September, 2006, Petitioner stood retired from the services as a Senior Domestic Science Teacher. The representations of Petitioner for extension of service were rejected on 06.11.2006.

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that extension of service up to two years are given to State Awardee teachers to encourage meritorious teachers. It is contended that FR-56(d) is not a bar to the grant of such extension because of applicability of Rule 110(3) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. Learned Counsel has also relied upon circulars of Respondent dated 11.04.1997. It is also contended that other similarly placed teachers who were State Awardees of 1989 were granted extension and they had enjoyed the same. It is only the Petitioner who has been left out. It is contended that in the earlier OA No. 2373/2006, Petitioner had mentioned about one Smt. Lakhbir Kaur who had been granted extension. After the disposal of the said O.A, Petitioner came to know about other State Awardee teachers, who had been granted extension in service by Respondent. Despite that, the Respondents have not considered her case favorably. It is contended that FR-56 does not prohibit grant of extension in service to State Awardee teachers.