TARUN AGARWALA,J. -
(1.) THE petitioner was working as the Head Mistress in a Government Primary School and was supposed to retire on 31st October, 2011 upon reaching the age of superannuation. A Government Order dated 8th April, 2011 was issued indicating therein that those teachers, head masters and head mistresses who retire during the academic session would be allowed to continue to remain in service till the end of the academic session. In the instant case, the academic session is 2011-12 beginning from 1st April, 2011 and ending on 31st March, 2012. Since the petitioner was to retire on 31st October, 2011, she was eligible to continue to work as a Teacher till the end of the academic session, i.e., 31st March, 2012.
(2.) THE Government Order dated 8th April, 2011 indicates that a person retiring during mid session could apply three months before the date of retirement subject to the fulfilling certain conditions. The Government Order of 08.11.2011 also indicated that the same would be made effective upon the amendment of Rule 56 of the Financial Hand Book. Based on the said G.O. and in the hope that the Financial Hand Book would be amended, the petitioner applied for extension of her services by moving an appropriate application dated 20th June, 2011. While her application was under process, the State Government issued another Government Order dated 20th September, 2011 indicating that pending amendment in the Financial Hand Book, the Government Order dated 8th April, 2011 is being made effective from 20th September, 2011.
In the light of the aforesaid Government Order dated 20th September, 2011, the petitioner became eligible for extension of her service subject to certain terms contained in the Government Order dated 8th April, 2011. Unfortunately, the petitioner's application was not processed within a reasonable period and the same was rejected by an order dated 1st March, 2012 passed by the Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Bageshwar on the ground that the minimum period of three months had not elapsed from the date of the notification dated 20th September, 2011. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the Court finds that the stand adopted by the respondents is patently absurd. The application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was required to apply three months before the date of the retirement. In the present case, the Government Order became effective on 20th September, 2011 and, consequently, the period of three months could not arise as the petitioner was retiring on 31.10.2011. The requirement of three months is not mandatory and is only directory to enable the opposite parties to process the application of the person so that necessary orders are passed for extension of the service on or before the due date of requirement. The whole idea is that ample period is given to the respondents to process the application. In the present case, the application was filed much before three months from the date of the impending retirement, that is to say, the application was filed on 20th June, 2011. The respondents, therefore, cannot say that they did not have ample time to process the application of the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid, the reasoning adopted by the respondents rejecting the petitioner's application is patently absurd and cannot be sustained.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner retired on 31st October, 2011 and has not worked in the institution after 31st October, 2011. No such proof has been given by the petitioner before this court to indicate that she had worked in the institution after 31st October, 2011. The Government Order was passed one month before the end of the academic session. Today the academic session is also over. Consequently, on the principle of no work no pay, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of payment of salary for the remaining period of the academic session. But in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner is entitled for cost. Since the petitioner's application remained pending before the authority since 20th June, 2011 and the said application was rejected almost after six months from the date of her retirement, the petitioner is entitled for cost which the court computes at Rs. 50,000/-. This amount shall be paid by the respondent No. 2, Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Bageshwar to the petitioner within six weeks from today. In the event the amount is not paid by the said respondent within the aforesaid period, it would be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in the writ petition.
In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.;