SHANT KAUR Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as J.B.T. Teachress in the Education Department in the State of Punjab on 24.7.1959 and was confirmed as such w.e.f. 27.8.1964. After confirmation she was promoted as Social Studies Mistress. According to the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner while working as Social Studies Mistress in Govt. Girls High School, Sardulgarh (Bhatinda) had applied for the post of Head Mistress in response to an advertisement issued by the Haryana Government. According to the petitioner she had applied through proper channel. She was selected as Head Mistress in the State of Haryana. Petitioner got herself relieved from the Head Mistress of G.G.H. School, Sardulgarh on 30.11.1982 to join her new appointment as Head Mistress in Haryana. She joined as Head Mistress in Govt. Girls High School, Ellenabad, Haryana on 1.12.1982.

(2.) The petitioner sent an affidavit dated 17.5.1985 to the concerned authorities in the State of Punjab that she had completed 23 years of service in the State of Punjab and wanted to get voluntary retirement from service. She also made a claim for pension and other pensionary benefits from the State of Punjab. Since no relief was granted to the petitioner, she filed the present writ petition.

(3.) In the reply filed on behalf of State of Punjab, Director School Education, Punjab and District Education Officer, Bathinda, the stand taken in that the petitioner's application should have been recommended by the Head of the Department i.e. Director of Public Instructions, Punjab and that the District Education Officer was not competent to recommend the application of the petitioner for appointment in other State or in other department within the State. According to the written statement, the application recommended by the District Education Officer only could not be considered an application through proper channel. Further it has been mentioned that even if the application had been sent through proper channel the petitioner should have resigned from the job to join in Haryana State. It is further the case of the respondents that the Head Mistress of Sardulgarh School was not competent to relieve the petitioner. In fact, according to the respondents, it is for the State of Haryana to consider whether to give any pensionary benefits of the previous service rendered in the State of Punjab. Accordingly, respondents' case is that the petitioner is not entitled to any pensionary benefits from the State of Punjab.