N. ANNAPURNA Vs. EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the relief of adding of her services as a teacher with the respondent no.2-school/Dr. K.R.B.M School from 18.7.1980 to 15.7.1987 for the purpose of sanctioning of pension and pensionary benefits. Petitioner pleads that the period from 18.7.1980 to 15.7.1987 be added to the qualifying years of service for the purposes of granting her pension and pensionary benefits. Respondent no.2/school started receiving the grant-in-aid from the respondent no.3/Director of Education (DOE) w.e.f. 16.7.1987 and earlier the period of the service of the petitioner from 18.7.1980 to 15.7.1987 with the respondent no.2/school was when the respondent no.2/school did not receive any grant-in-aid from the respondent no.3/DOE.

(2.) When the respondent no.2/school received grant-in-aid from the respondent no.3/DOE, the petitioner was admittedly given a fresh appointment specifically in terms of the letter dated 16.7.1987 of the respondent no.2/school. This letter dated 16.7.1987 has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition. This letter dated 16.7.1987 informs the petitioner that on her appointment as Assistant Teacher with the respondent no.2/school, her pay-scale is fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-30-1560. In the writ petition paras 2 (v) & (vi) petitioner pleads that senior scale of pay granted to the petitioner w.e.f 16.7.1999 should not have been from 16.7.1999 but should have been instead from 18.7.1992 on account of the petitioner's appointment being taken not from 16.7.1987 but from 18.7.1980. These paragraphs read as under:-

(3.) Petitioner has pleaded in a writ petition that she made various representations to the respondent nos. 1 and 3 to add the period of service from 18.7.1980 to 15.7.1987 for determining her total qualifying years of service for pensionary benefits, and which are referred to in the communications of the respondent no.2/school to the respondent no.3/DOE dated 17/210.2002, 16.1.2003, 21.2003 and 2009. Petitioner thereafter had served a legal notice to the respondent no.3/DOE through the respondent no.1 on 18.7.2009. Respondent no.2/school rejected the stand of the petitioner in her legal notice by the reply of the school dated 21.8.2009. Respondent no.3/DOE through the respondent no.4 rejected the claim of the petitioner by its letter dated 21.10.2009. Petitioner therefore has filed this writ petition in this Court on 4.2.2011.