KANTI DEVI SRIVASTAVA WIFE OF SRI RAJ BALLABH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION), THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION AND THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER wants quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 3167 dated 9.10.2003 (Annexure - 4 to the writ application).

(2.) By virtue of this order the claim of the petitioner to include her past service rendered by her under aided school, namely, Ganga Devi Arya Kanya Middle School, Sahebganj, Chapra between 2.4.1964 to 25.3.1973 has not been taken into consideration and in fact has been rejected by the respondents by the impugned order. Petitioner retired as Assistant Teacher on 31.1.2003 from the Primary School, Dahiyawan Tola, Mathia, in Chapra Town, Chapra. Post retirement, when the pension of the petitioner was not finalised she was compelled to file a writ, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 9061 of 2003. During the pendency of the writ application the petitioner 'ssanction for pension was forwarded to the Accountant General and pension and gratuity came to be sanctioned by the Accountant General, Bihar on 22.10.2003 treating the service of the petitioner with effect from 26.3.1973.

(3.) PETITIONER was not satisfied with the said sanction and authorization of pension and, therefore, decided to approach respondent No. 3, the District Superintendent of Education, Saran with representation that her past service should also be taken into consideration since the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 2.4.1964 in a Government aided school, namely, Ganga Devi Arya Kanya Middle School, Sahebganj, Chapra. She had worked in the said school till 25.3.1973 when on the basis of an interview conducted by the Education Planning Committee she came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 14.3.1973. This according to the petitioner was a valid reason to treat the service rendered by her between 2.4.1964 to 14.3.1973 as part and parcel of the service rendered under the respondents. Stand of the petitioner is that refusal by respondent No. 3 in his decision contained in Annexure -4 is an illegal and arbitrary action passed without application of mind, if not malafide in law. Petitioner also submits that the order of rejection only states that the same is not in accordance with the rules but it does not state that as to which rule came in the way.