SAROJ NAMDEO Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HUSBAND of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Maharaja Martand College, Kotma, Distt. Shahdol on 1/9/1977. The staff of aforesaid college was absorbed in the Government service vide order dated 19/26th March, 1987. By the said order the services of the husband of the petitioner was also absorbed and he was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in the Commerce Department. The appointment of the husband of the petitioner was approved by the M.P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog vide order dated 7/1/1982. In other words the husband of the petitioner was duly qualified and appointed on the sanctioned post of Assistant Professor. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 4/10/1996. Subsequently, the petitioner was made payment of an amount of Rs. 1,94,144/ - towards GPF and Rs. 1,20,000/ - towards Group Insurance Scheme and interim family pension was also granted to the petitioner, however, without any reason, the respondents have stopped the payment of interim pension to the petitioner. She, therefore, approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 1211/2005(s). In the said writ petition the respondents have filed the return stating that the husband of the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Assistant Professor in terms of the UGC guidelines and he continued as Ad hoc Assistant Professor in the dying cadre. They further alleged that when the private college of the petitioner's husband was taken over, the services of the petitioner's husband were absorbed on ad hoc basis. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20/1/2010 by holding that the husband of the petitioner was qualified for regular appointment on the post of Assistant Professor and have further found that as the UGC has approved the appointment of husband of the petitioner vide letter dated 7/1/1982 and, therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner's husband did not possess the requisite qualifications in terms of the UGC guidelines is incorrect.

(2.) IN pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the respondents have passed an order dated 12/6/2010 thereby releasing the interim pension to the petitioner, however, they did not make payment of other benefits which were admissible to the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation dated 28/8/2010 and after submitting the representation, approached to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7538/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 4/5/2011 with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of four months. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 6/9/2011, however, as the respondents had failed to comply with the said order within a stipulated period as directed by this Court, the petitioner has, therefore, filed Contempt Case No. 98/2012 which was dismissed for non -compliance of the peremptory order. Subsequently, the respondents have passed an order dated 22/8/2012 rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner does not possess requisite qualifications and, therefore, he cannot be absorbed in Government service. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier round of litigation while disposing of the writ petition No. 12115/2005, this Court has found that the contention of respondents that the petitioner's husband did not possess the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Assistant Professor in terms of the UGC guidelines is incorrect. He further argued that in view of the observations made by this Court, as the petitioner's husband has rendered service for more than ten years and, therefore, he is entitled to get the family pension, he further argued that the appointment of the husband of the petitioner, on the post of Professor, Commerce, has been approved by the UGC on 7/1/1982 and, therefore, on the basis of the same ground that the petitioner does not hold the educational qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor, does not found good and, therefore, the order dated 22/8/2012 deserves to be set aside in the light of the observations made by this in W.P. No. 12115/2005.