PREMLATA RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 at length. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being decided without calling for counter affidavit.

(2.) BY means of the order dated 7.11.2014, payment of arrears of salary from 30.11.1996 to 28.2.2007 was refused to the petitioner while rejecting her representation dated 23.8.2012 pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 8.8.2012 in writ petition No. 62813 of 2008.

(3.) FACTS in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis under Section 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Act 1982 against a newly sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade. The post was later on notified to the Commission for selection of a regular incumbent. It was a scheduled caste reserved category post and one Smt. Sita Kumari was selected as LT Grade Teacher in the Scheduled Caste category and recommended for appointment on 4.11.1996. The appointment letter was issued by the committee of management and Smt. Sita Kumari joined on 29.11.1996. Pursuant thereto adhoc engagement of the petitioner came to an end particularly in view of the terms and conditions as contained in the appointment letter itself. It appears that the claim for regularisation was considered by the regularisation committee and was rejected. Challenging the termination order and the rejection of claim for regularisation, writ petition no. 24907 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner which was decided on 11.1.2002. The operative portion of judgment and order dated 11.1.2002 is quoted as under: -