SALESTINA TUTI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned JC to GP -I.

(2.) WHILE on the one hand the petitioner claims to have worked continuously right from 25.2.1957 to 5.12.1984 from 10.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m., the respondents on the other hand at paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit have stated that during the period 25.2.1957 to 5.12.1984 she merely worked as part time escorting rnaid servant and that she performed her duty from 9.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m., escorting children from their respective homes to the School and again taking them back from the school from 4.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.

(3.) FROM the own showing of the respondents as has been mentioned in the last line of paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is apparent that during the period 25.2.1957 to 5.12.1984, the petitioner served as a part time escorting maid servant and for which she had been paid remuneration. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 2137 of 1994 (R) which was disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation and the authority was directed to dispose off the same by a reasoned order. The reasoned order is Annexure 2 by which the representation was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had put in only 1 year 25 days of service as a fresh appointee from 6.12.1984 to 31.12.1986 as stated in paragraph 7 to the counter affidavit. In other words the aforesaid contention of the writ petitioner and the aforesaid admission on the part of the respondents to the effect that the petitioner had worked as part time escorting maid servant during the period 25.2.1957 to 5.12.1984 appears not to have been taken into consideration.