DURGA AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Keeping in view the short controversy involved in the matter and the nature of order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to call for any counter -affidavit from the respondents. Petitioner was working as a Lecturer in Government Urdu Higher Secondary School, Damoh. She submitted an application on 15.7.2014 Annexure P/1, seeking voluntary retirement in accordance to the Scheme of the State Government. Even though the competent authority of the State Government accepted the voluntary retirement with effect from15.8.2014, but no order was passed in this regard and the petitioner continued to work even after 15.8.2014, as the controlling authority of the petitioner was not aware of acceptance of the voluntary retirement by the State Government.

(2.) However, vide Annexure P/4, on 21.10.2014, the Directorate of Public Instructions passed an order under Rule 42 -1(A) of the MP Pension Rules accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner with effect from 15.8.2014 and communicated the same to the Principal of the Institute, for informing the petitioner. Accordingly the order was served on the petitioner on 1.11.2014 and she was relieved on 1.11.2014. Now, after grant of benefit of voluntary retirement to the petitioner, salary from 15.8.2014 upto 1.11.2014 has not been 2 paid on the ground that the petitioner stood retired on 15.8.2014. Claiming salary for the aforesaid period, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) From the facts that have come on record and on a perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that even though the competent authority accepted the voluntary retirement with effect from 15.8.2014, but the order accepting the voluntary retirement was passed 21.10.2014, after two months of the same and finally communicated and served on the petitioner only on 1.11.2014. As a consequence thereof, petitioner worked even after 15.8.2014 upto 1.11.2014 and is, therefore, entitled for salary for the work done by her. Petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay on the part of the respondents in dealing with the matter in time. Merely because the order was passed on 21.10.2014, it cannot be a ground for denying salary to the petitioner, when due to the lapse on the part of the authority in communicating the order and rather passing the order after a period of two months, petitioner worked for the period in question. However, petitioner will only be entitled for salary for the aforesaid period. She actually discharged duties and for all other purposes i.e... for the purpose of settling her retiral dues, her date of retirement be treated as 15.8.2014. In view of this, petition is allowed and disposed of with the following directions: -