LAKSHMIKANT BHIKHABHAI PATEL Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This court on 07.08.2020 recorded the facts in this petition and passed the following extensive order:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was working with the respondent No.3 school since 1997. Because of the reduction of classes of Standard 11 and 12 in the respondent no.3 school, the petitioner was declared surplus by an order dated 18.09.2019. The petitioner's case is that unless and until he is absorbed in other school, the respondent continues to be liable to pay salary to him. On 24.09.2019, the District Education Of Education Officer passed an order directing that the respondent no.2- school absorbs the petitioner. The petitioner was relieved by the respondent no.3 on 25.09.2019. The case of the petitioner is that when he went to join at the respondent no.4-school on 26.09.2019, he was not allowed to report at respondent no.4-school. On 27.09.2019 therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the District Education Officer. A copy of the representation is annexed to the petition at page 31, wherein, the petitioner has stated that he had reported to the respondent no.4-school but was not permitted to resume his duty. It appears that the District Education Officer passed a fresh order on 04.10.2019 that the petitioner be absorbed in the respondent no.5- school. The petitioner went to report on 01.10.2019 and 09.10.2019, but was refused to resume his duties. The petitioner again made a representation to the District Education Officer on 10.10.2019 (page 45). On 14.10.2019, the petitioner requested that the respondent no.3 may continue to pay the salary. By an order dated 01.01.2020, on the directions of the District Education Officer, the respondent No.3- school has sought to recover the salary for a period of three months from 25.09.2019 to 31.12.2019 from the petitioner.

(3.) The District Education Officer on 13.01.2010, has addressed a letter to the petitioner that the petitioner should explain as to why he did not report at the respondent no.5-s report at the respondent no.5-school and it appears that the petitioner's conduct is to avoid resuming duties at the school where he was posted. To this, the petitioner has responded by letters dated 27.01.2020 and 05.03.2020. Mr.Jha would also submit that the notice dated 13.01.2020 is issued to him only because the petitioner made representation on 11.01.2020.