LATABEN Vs. RAJYAGURU ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Sufferings of the petitioner, despite the fact that this Court on 29-1-1982 decided the earlier petition in her favour and order of dismissal from service has not only been quashed but also declared to be null and void and ineffective, still continues. How the respondents treat the decision of this Court is clearly exhibited in this litigation. Yet another aspect to be noted is how this Court is helpless to give a person, whose dismissal order has been held to be nullity by this Court on 21-9-1982, all the reliefs for twelve years. Here the system is to be blamed. Otherwise, this category of cases need to be dealt with forthwith.

(2.) . The petitioner who was employed by Kheda District Panchayat at Nadiad was dismissed from service vide order dated 11-8-1977 giving effect from 18-7- 1975. This order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 877 of 1988. That writ petition was decided by this Court on 29-1-1982 and the same was allowed. The order of dismissal of the petitioner from service by Kheda District Panchayat was quashed and set aside as being found null and void and ineffective. Copy of the judgment of this Court dated 29-1-1982 is produced at Annexure-C. The petitioner was reinstated in service by the respondents but she has not been given the benefit of back wages etc., for the interregnum, i.e., 18-7-1975 to 29-1-1982, the date of dismissal and the date of judgment of this Court. After her reinstatement in service, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities from time to time for implementation of the decision of this Court in full. But as usual, no heed was paid to her prayers. She also approached the District Education Officer, Kheda District, by filing representation, a copy of which has been produced at Annexure-D. But that authority also could not prove to be of any help to the petitioner. After sending some reminders the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition.

(3.) . This Court, possibly looking to the nature of the case, issued notice to the respondents on 15-12-1983, but they have not responded to the same and as such on 23rd January, 1984 the Court has issued Rule. The respondents have not cared to file reply to the writ petition till date.