SAROJ SINGH SISODIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for grant of full pension on the basis of last pay fixed on promotion of the petitioner and for arrears of difference of pay on account of such promotions.

(2.) The petitioner was earlier dismissed from service vide order dtd. 6/5/2010 on account of unauthorized absence for over seven years. Against the said order of dismissal, she filed a writ application before this Court and this Court disposed of the same by directing her to prefer a statutory appeal against the dismissal order as provided under the Rules. Accordingly, she filed Service Appeal No. 1074 of 2006, before the Commissioner, Saran Division, who, vide order dtd. 29/1/2007, set aside the order of dismissal and directed for calculation of her absence as leave as per the Rules of the Government. Pursuant to the said order of the Commissioner, the matter of the petitioner was sent before the District Establishment Committee which, by resolution dtd. 30/3/2007, ordered to reinstate the petitioner, but held that she will not be entitled for her salary of the period of absence on the principle of "no work no pay". Pursuant to the said resolution of the Establishment Committee, the District Superintendent of Education issued order dtd. 10/4/2007 whereby the petitioner was placed at the initial stage of pay-scale and was not allowed increments etc. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dtd. 10/4/2007 by filing CWJC No. 5843 of 2008 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dtd. 25/7/2011 with a direction to the respondents to adjust the period of absence of the petitioner from 16/3/1994 to 29/1/2000 against her admissible leave. However, the said period was directed to be considered for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits. It was also directed that the said period shall not be treated as break in service. The Court held that upon her joining, the petitioner should be entitled to be placed on the pay-scale and increment, which she had last drawn before her suspension or before commencement of such unauthorised leave.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28/2/2014. He submitted that though the petitioner has completed more than 29 years of service, she has not been granted time bound promotion. He submitted that the petitioner is entitled for grant of pension on the basis last pay fixed on time bound promotion and arrears of difference of pay on account of promotion granted to her.