GAURI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that that the Petitioner is a retired Assistant Teacher and she has preferred this writ petition mainly for the reason that the oder passed by Respondent No. 3 dated 07/11.2.2009, annexure-3 to the memo of petition, whereby sizable amount of Rs. 77000/- has been ordered to be deducted, and the same has now also been recovered by the Respondents, by recalculating the total number of leave period as 144 days instead of 270 days. In fact the Petitioner retired on 31st December, 2006 and the total unused leave of 270 days was encashed and the amount was paid at Rs. 1,65,000/- and after about two years, unilaterally and arbitrarily the Respondents recalculated the encashable period as 144 days instead of 270 days without issuing any show cause notice or without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. Moreover, Rule 231 of the Jharkhand Services Code, which has been referred by the Respondents, is also not applicable to the Petitioner. Learned Counsel further submitted that an absolutely unilateral and arbitrary decision has been taken by the Respondents vide annexure-3 and hence, it deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that there was a mistake in calculating the leave period as 270 days and correct calculation is 144 days only and therefore, Rs. 77000/- has been ordered to be deducted from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner. Moreover, a detailed speaking order has been passed by Respondent No. 3 dated 07/11.2.2009 which is annexure 3 to the memo of petition.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby allow this writ application mainly for the following reasons: