DAYA LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Daya Lal Sharma, Ex. Head Teacher, Government Primary School, Kila Farm, has filed the present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the State of Haryana and Director, Primary Education, Haryana, for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the whole benefits to the petitioner, attached with the Teacher's State Award for the year 1987-88.

(2.) The case pleaded by the petitioner is that 5th of September of every year, which falls on the eve of the birthday of Dr. Radhakrishanan Sarvpalli, is celebrated as Teacher's Day. The State of Haryana also celebrated Teacher's Day and on this auspicious occasion, the State of Haryana announced the awards to the teachers of meritorious service to their credit. The names of the teachers having meritorious record were considered by the Government of Haryana for the year 1987-88 and the name of the petitioner also came on the merit list and his name was recommended for the Teacher's State Award for the year 1987-88. A letter dated 22.3.1990 was written from the Director of Secondary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh to the petitioner in this regard. The name of the petitioner was also included in the booklet of Teachers State Award. According to the petitioner, the teachers, who were awarded this award, were entitled to get a cash amount of Rs. 2,500/- one bronze medal, two annual increments for five years, two years extension in service and one shawl. The case of the petitioner fell in the year 1987-88. However, due to the negligence of the department, petitioner was given the said award on 20.4.1990 along with Rs. 25,000/- instead of 5.9.1980. Consequently, the petitioner had to retire on 31.10.1988 after attaining the age of 58 years. Had the State Award been given to the petitioner well in time the petitioner would have got two years extension in service. The petitioner made a representation to the appropriate authority which was considered sympathetically and his case was recommended for giving extension in service for two years. However, inspite of the recommendations the case was delayed for three months and, therefore, the petitioner was given extension on 16.7.1990 and was appointed as Head Teacher in a Government Primary School, Kila Farm. The petitioner joined the service as such on 17.7.1990. However, statutory benefit of two increments was also denied to the petitioner and he was also denied the payment of monthly salary for the remaining period. Not only this, even the Head Teacher allowance amounting to Rs. 50/- per month and counted as personal pay was also withdrawn.

(3.) The petitioner made several representations requesting therein that the remaining period running from 1.11.1988 to 16.7.1990 be considered as on duty and this period should be regularised and in case there was any difficulty with the department then the petitioner should have been given further extension of two years in order to complete 2 years from 17.7.1990. This representation did not find favour with the department and the petitioner was made to retire on 30.10.1990 i.e. at the age of 60 years. The petitioner alleged that the respondents are under legal and moral obligation to honour the commitment and with this prayer the petitioner has prayed for the relief mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.