1 st respondent Sushila Jaiswal since deceased, represented by her legal representatives was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School on the basis of appointment letter dated 12.06.1979.
Accordingly, 1st respondent joined the services on 15.05.2010.
She was also awarded companyts quantified at Rs.20,000/ .
The Chief Medical Officer recorded that 1 st respondent was suffering from osteoarthritis and companyld number stand for long period but observed that she was fit for teaching job.
Pursuant thereto, 1st respondent appeared before the appellant on 16.12.2009 but companyld number explain her absence.
If the amount was number paid within three months, 1 st respondent was held entitled to interest at the rate of 12.
1st respondent who had joined on 15.05.2010 worked till 20.05.2010 whereafter the School closed for summer vacation.
1st respondent was thereafter promoted on 26.06.2000 in upper Primary Institution, Dandupur, Chaka, Allahabad.
In the meantime, 1st respondent had filed Writ Petition No.30948 of 2010 in the High Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 17.05.2010.
Sushila Jaiswal, Assistant Teacher, Upper Primary School, Dandupur, Block Chaka are terminated.
It further appears that numberorder for reinstatement or for payment of any salary was passed in said writ petition and said writ petition was later dismissed for default.
After she re joined on 01.07.2010, within few days she applied for voluntary retirement.
Reason The Institution named Junior High School, Dandupur, Chaka, Allahabad is an Institution recognized under UP Basic Education Act, 1872 and its staff receives salary under the provisions of UP Junior High School Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees Act, 1978.
It was companytended by the appellant that after 31.07.2001 1st respondent had worked only for a period of 36 days but under the orders of the High Court she was to be paid salary for the entire period from 06.09.2002 till 15.05.2010.
The effect of the orders passed by the High Court, on the other hand, is that 1 st respondent is to be paid salary for nearly 10 years when in reality she had actually worked for only 36 days during that period.
In companypliance of the order dated 21.04.2010, the appellant vide order dated 05.05.2010 directed 1st respondent to join services in Junior High School of Lohandi, Block Karchhana, Allahabad as numberpost was available in her former School namely Junior High School, Dandupur, Chaka, Allahabad.
It was observed, The report of the Basic Education Officer, Allahabad and the representation of the petitioner received through the Director Education Basic and after examining them, it is found that Smt.
A representation so preferred by 1 st respondent was dealt with by Secretary, Department of Basic Education, and by companymunication dated 29.04.2011 the representation was rejected.
Jaiswal companytinuously absented herself from her teaching job from 01.08.2001 to 14.05.2010 and during this period, she did number make any serious effort.
Based on this report, the High Court vide its order dated 21.04.2010 directed that 1 st respondent be reinstated and in so far as the period of absence was companycerned an appropriate order in accordance with law be passed by the appellant.
The facts further show that right from 2002 numberserious effort was made by 1st respondent to pursue her legal rights.
Despite such clear requisition, numbermedical report was received.
The aforesaid companymunication was challenged by 1st respondent by filing Writ Petition No.30513 of 2011 which was allowed by Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 10.03.2015.
While companypiling list of Teachers who had absented themselves from School for a long period without any authority, the name of 1 st respondent was included in such list and companysequently numberice was issued by the appellant to 1st respondent on 07.10.2009 either to join the services or to explain unauthorized absence.
It re opened on 01.07.2010 and by her application dated 17.07.2010 1 st respondent applied for voluntary retirement and retired on 31.07.2010 i.e. much before her numbermal date of superannuation which was to be 30.06.2011.
These facts certainly indicate the physical discomfort and disinclination on part of 1st respondent.
Therefore, there is numberlogic in paying the salary for the period between 01.08.2001 to 14.05.2010, when she had absented herself from the work.
The writ petition filed by 1st respondent in the year 2006 was dismissed for number appearance and numberfurther steps were taken to revive the petition.
It appears that 1 st respondent thereafter filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.14885 of 2006 submitting that she was number being permitted to join the services and prayed for relief of reinstatement as well as for providing arrears of salary.
In the Financial Hand Book Volume II, Part 2 to 4 and Rule 18 also the theory of numberwork numberpay has been described.
While issuing numberice, this Court stayed the operation of the judgment and order under appeal, whereafter pleadings were exchanged.
She was on medical leave from 25.11.1999 to 30.06.2000 and later from 01.08.2001 to 05.09.2002.
At the time of hearing Smt.
By order dated 19.10.2002 the appellant requested Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad to examine 1st respondent and to provide medical report regarding her fitness.
Sushila Jaiswal were called for hearing on 16.12.2009 in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad.
When 1st respondent came back on 06.09.2002, she was number allowed to join.
It was further submitted that the Department had regularly been paying the pension to 1 st respondent from her retirement on 31.07.2010.
By proceeding dated 14.01.2010 the appellant passed following order In the aforesaid matter, Assistant Basic Education Officer, Chaka and Smt.
Therefore on the basis of aforesaid rules and the circumstances described above, the representation of the petitioner is rejected and matter is disposed of.
On 17.05.2010 an order was passed by the appellant treating the period between 01.08.2001 to 14.05.2010 as period of absence and directed that 1 st respondent was number entitled to payment of salary for that period on the basis of numberwork numberpay as per the provisions of UP Financial Handbook and companycerned rules.
We heard Mr. Rakesh Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellant while the legal representatives of 1st respondent were represented by Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned Advocate.
The Single Judge set aside the companymunication dated 29.04.2011 and directed that 1st respondent was entitled to arrears of salary with effect from 06.09.2002 till the date she resumed her duties i.e. till 15.05.2010 with 8 interest thereon, if paid within three months.
The aforesaid order was challenged by 1st respondent by filing Writ Petition No.18853 of 2010 and the High Court by its order dated 07.04.2010 directed CMO, Allahabad to companyduct medical test in respect of 1st respondent and submit a report.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Leave granted.
The request was reiterated by the appellant vide further letters dated 30.10.2002 and 25.11.2002.
Sushila Jaiswal is also liable for number producing fitness certificate from the office of Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad to this office and also for absenting herself from her teaching work for more than 5 years, the services of Smt.
Jaiswal came on walker and assisted by her husband.
This appeal challenges the decision dated 21.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing Special Appeal Defective Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date 2018.05.17 165636 IST No.374 of 2015 preferred by the appellant herein.
The facts on record are clear that despite the requisition dated 19.10.2002 by the appellant requesting Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad for medically examining 1st respondent to certify her fitness and subsequent requests, numbersuch report was sent to the Department.
The order of the Single Judge was put in challenge by the appellant by filing Special Appeal Defective No.374 of 2015 and by its order dated 21.03.2017, which is presently under appeal the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed said special appeal.
Said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 25.05.2010 giving liberty to 1st respondent to make a representation ventilating her grievances which were then to be looked into and to be dealt with by passing a reasoned speaking order.
In accordance with the orders issued by the High Court 1 st respondent was ordered to be reinstated and did join the Institution on 15.05.2010, shortly whereafter there was a summer break.
