MUNNI PANT Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER BAGESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as the Head Mistress in a Government Primary School and was supposed to retire on 31st October, 2011 upon reaching the age of superannuation. A Government Order dated 8th April, 2011 was issued indicating therein that those teachers, head masters and head mistresses who retire during the academic session would be allowed to continue to remain in service till the end of the academic session. In the instant case, the academic session is 2011-12 beginning from 1st April, 2011 and ending on 31st March, 2012. Since the petitioner was to retire on 31st October, 2011, she was eligible to continue to work as a Teacher till the end of the academic session, i.e., 31st March, 2012.

(2.) THE Government Order dated 8th April, 2011 indicates that a person retiring during mid session could apply three months before the date of retirement subject to the fulfilling certain conditions. The Government Order of 08.11.2011 also indicated that the same would be made effective upon the amendment of Rule 56 of the Financial Hand Book. Based on the said G.O. and in the hope that the Financial Hand Book would be amended, the petitioner applied for extension of her services by moving an appropriate application dated 20th June, 2011. While her application was under process, the State Government issued another Government Order dated 20th September, 2011 indicating that pending amendment in the Financial Hand Book, the Government Order dated 8th April, 2011 is being made effective from 20th September, 2011.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner retired on 31st October, 2011 and has not worked in the institution after 31st October, 2011. No such proof has been given by the petitioner before this court to indicate that she had worked in the institution after 31st October, 2011. The Government Order was passed one month before the end of the academic session. Today the academic session is also over. Consequently, on the principle of no work no pay, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of payment of salary for the remaining period of the academic session. But in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner is entitled for cost. Since the petitioner's application remained pending before the authority since 20th June, 2011 and the said application was rejected almost after six months from the date of her retirement, the petitioner is entitled for cost which the court computes at Rs. 50,000/-. This amount shall be paid by the respondent No. 2, Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Bageshwar to the petitioner within six weeks from today. In the event the amount is not paid by the said respondent within the aforesaid period, it would be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in the writ petition.