MAINA WANTI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking mandamus for release of her retiral benefits for the post of a Craft Teacher/Primary Teacher, for which she was appointed and on the post on which she has worked till her retirement.

(2.) As per the claim made in the petition the petitioner was appointed as a Craft Teacher against the vacant post on regular basis on 31.10.1963. She claims to have continued to work on this post till her retirement. In between, she filed a representation on 27.08.1975 for release of proper pay scale, copy of which is Annexure P-12. Her case was forwarded by Sub Divisional Education Officer, Faridabad to District Education Officer (in short "the DEO"), Gurgaon, who in turn further forwarded the case to Director Public Instructions (in short "the DPI") for sympathetic consideration. This happened on 06.01.1976. The petitioner has made reference to a communication from DPI, who on 30.08.2976, after perusing the record, was of the view that the petitioner is a junior teacher and not a Class - IV employee. He accordingly directed the DEO to examine the case of the petitioner at his own level and asked for report. The matter remained under consideration and the petitioner was so informed even on 23.06.1983, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-16. The petitioner became due for retirement in August, 1985. At that stage, DEO sought advise from the DPI if the petitioner is to continue till completion of 60 years of age, considering her to be Class-IV employee. Alternative, she was to be retired on completion of 58 years of age. The petitioner, on the other hand, claimed to have prayed for being relieved w.e.f. 31.08.1985, after attaining the age of superannuation.

(3.) The petitioner made various representations from the year 1986 to 1993 for release of her salary as Craft teacher/Primary teacher but did not hear anything. The department failed to release the retiral claim of the petitioner despite repeated requests which necessitated filing of C.W.P. No. 5505 of 1994 by the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, to reconsider the entire case of petitioner. The petitioner was given liberty to make a representation within one month and the government was to consider and decide the same within a period of three months. The petitioner accordingly made a detailed representation on 03.05.2003. The respondent failed to comply with the directions passed by this Court to decide the representation, as referred to above. The petitioner had then filed Contempt Petition No. 270 of 2004. The notice of contempt petition was issued when the claim of the petitioner, as raised in the representation, was rejected. The order dated 30.08.2004 rejecting the representation was accordingly impugned by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition. Notice was issued on 03.01.2005. The writ petition was ordered to be admitted on 23.05.2006 with the direction for hearing within a period of one year, the petitioner being a senior citizen.