LAWS(GJH)-2007-7-89

JAYABEN MANILAL BHATT Vs. JAMNAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

Decided On July 02, 2007
JAYABEN MANILAL BHATT Appellant
V/S
JAMNAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged the legality of the judgement and order dated 5th July, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.6318 of 2000, whereby the petition filed by the appellant seeking directions against the respondents to give pensionary benefits to the appellant, is dismissed in limine.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant (original petitioner) had joined the services of the respondent No.2 as a Primary Teacher with effect from 16th June, 1959 and served as such till 22nd August, 1972. On 22nd August, 1972, the appellant proceeded on maternity leave and thereafter, did not resume service. It is the case of the appellant that she had reported for duty on 6th May, 1973, however, she was not permitted to join the service. The appellant attained the age of superannuation on 1st January, 1990. It appears that thereafter, she had made several representations claiming pension and other retiral benefits and has ultimately filed the above writ petition before this Court, after a delay of more than ten years, sometime in June, 2000.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, after considering the record of the Special Civil Application as well as the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellant, has found that it is an admitted fact that the appellant had joined service in the year 1959 as an untrained Primary School Teacher and had served as such till 22nd August, 1972. Since then, the appellant had proceeded on maternity leave, and after expiry of the leave period, as per the say of the appellant, she had reported for duty on 6th May, 1973. The learned Single Judge found that the veracity of the copy of the joining report produced at Annexure-A to the petition is questionable. It was noted that it is an admitted fact that the appellant had not rendered service since 22nd August, 1972 till she reached the age of superannuation on 1st January, 1990, after which she started making representations for pension and other retiral benefits.