VEENA TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is preferred on behalf of the petitioner claiming post retiral benefits from the date of original appointment i.e. on 15th October, 1977. The claim of the petitioner is that she was appointed in Shri Ramdhari High School, Rajwadih, Daltonganj and retired on 31st January, 2004 as an Assistant Teacher of Nationalized Brahmin High School, Daltonganj. The Institution Shri Ramdhari High School, Rajwadih, Daltonganj was taken over by the Government of Bihar with effect from 2nd October, 1980. The resolution of the State of Bihar (Education Department) vide resolution No. 1775 dated 30th August, 1980 is annexed along with the supplementary affidavit in support of the contention that the petitioner was already working in the Institution when it was taken over. The resolution has been placed in support of the contention that the teachers and the non-teaching staff of the Institution were entitled for all benefits available to a Government employee including post retiral benefits. The emphasis is on paragraph 5 of the said resolution as well.

(2.) On perusal of the resolution it transpires that the teachers and the non-teaching staff were granted entitlement of all benefits from the date of their appointment including retiral benefits. Besides reliance has also been placed on a letter No. E/V 8-0641/77 Shi0-1532 issued by the Education Department, Bihar. The letter is to the Secretary, Bihar Madhayamik Shiksha Board by the Director, Research and Training, Bihar whereby the teachers whose names figure in the list appended to the said letter were sent to Bhagalpur Teachers' Training Institute. The name of the petitioner shown at Sl. No.59. On the aforesaid basis the claim is that the post retiral benefit has been granted after calculating it w.e.f. 13th August, 1982. In the circumstances, the entire controversy is that the petitioner has not been granted post retiral benefits from the date of her appointment.

(3.) The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the Institution was taken over and the records available with them shows the petitioner's entitlement for post retiral benefits is only with effect from the year 1982. The claim of the petitioner is that she was appointed in the year 1977. The petitioner is not able to produce any document in support of the original appointment. So far the contention that the petitioner was sent for training in the year 1979 cannot be averted to assess the evidentiary value to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner was working at the relevant time when she was sent for training. However, it is a fact that the Institution was taken over with effect from 2nd October, 1980 which is also substantiated by the resolution already mentioned here-in-above and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for post retiral benefits from the date when the Institution was taken over by the respondents appears to be justified. However, there is no such resolution nor any rule to grant post retiral benefits from the original date before the Institution was taken over previously run by the Management and, therefore, I am not inclined to grant the benefit from the original date of appointment as claimed by the petitioner i.e. the year 1977.