ASHA SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher and thereafter, the petitioner was wrongly dismissed from her services with effect from 10th June, 2002. The petitioner preferred a writ petition against the said order, bearing W.P.(S) No. 4338 of 2002, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 14th October, 2003. Thereafter, against this order, the State preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 156 of 2004, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11th November, 2004, against which, Special Leave Petition was preferred by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 16th January, 2006. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that several times, the petitioner had approached the respondents for resuming her duties, after the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. The petitioner approached the respondents in November, 2003 vide letter at Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition for resuming her duties, but, the respondents had not allowed the petitioner to resume her duties. Likewise, after dismissal of L.P.A. also, again a letter was written dated 9th December, 2004 (Annexure-8 to the memo of the petition) for resuming the duties, but, the respondents had not allowed the petitioner to join her services and ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. vide order dated 26th January, 2006 and therefore, the petitioner is claiming salary for the period running from 10th June, 2002 to 14th February, 2006. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that for no fault of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were brought to an end and while dismissing of the writ petition, it has been observed by this Court that the petitioner is entitled of all the benefits and therefore, from the very beginning, the petitioner is entitled for the salary for the aforesaid period.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's services were terminated by the respondents with effect from 10th June, 2002 and thereafter, the writ petition was preferred by the petitioner, which was allowed. Thereafter, L.P.A. and S.L.P. both were preferred by the respondents, which was dismissed and thereafter, a letter was written by the respondents dated 12th February, 2006, which is at Annexure-10 to the memo of the petition that the petitioner is permitted to resume her duties, but, on the basis of 'No Work, No Pay', salary of the period running from 10th June, 2002 to 14th February, 2006, will not be paid and therefore, the petition, deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: