INDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajeshwar Singh and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This petition is directed against an order dated 2.9.2006 which has been passed in pursuance of a judgment of this Court dated 15.2.2006 in Writ Petition no. 38016 of 1998. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Teacher in Junior Primary School on 12.1.1973. However, the Dy. Inspector of Schools vide order dated 20.9.1973 transferred the petitioner to Junior High School in pursuance of which the petitioner had joined on 16.10.1973. However, she was being paid salary of an Asstt. Teacher of Junior Primary School and when the salary of teacher of Junior High School was not given despite several representations, she preferred the aforesaid writ petition. After exchange of pleadings, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition with the following operative order : "In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.10.1998 is quashed to the extent above and respondents are directed to pay salary at the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post of Assistant teacher, Junior High School to the petitioner since 16.10.1973 till 30.10.1986 within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is however, clarified that the purpose of increment, seniority etc. on the post of Assistant Teacher, Junior High School, the petitioner would not be entitled for any benefit on account of payment of the aforesaid salary but the same would be available to the petitioner from the date she was promoted as Assistant Teacher, Junior High School and in accordance with relevant rules." In pursuance thereof by the present impugned order, the petitioner has been awarded the difference in pay of teacher in Junior High School for the period 16.10.1973 to 30.10.1986. However, she was not granted increment, seniority etc. in view of the judgment of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner now seeks certain other benefits based upon the Government order dated 18.7.1986, i.e. prior to the filing of the writ petition. It was for the petitioner to have raised all issues in the earlier writ petition and now after the judgment, specially without challenging it, he cannot raise old claims. Even otherwise, the impugned order was passed about three years ago and except for a bald statement in paragraph 23 that she was not well, there is no other explanation. In fact she has neither disclosed the nature of her ailment nor the specific period for which she was confined due to illness. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case tor interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.