Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 24.08.2006 in Case No. 24 of 2006 (JET) passed by Jharkhand Educational Tribunal, Ranchi (hereinafter referred as JET) whereby and whereunder appellant was directed to pay salary to respondent No. 4 from 04.04.1988 to 03.10.1994.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. It appears from Annexure -1 that respondent No. 4 was appointed as temporary teacher in the School of appellant. In pursuance of the same, she joined on 04.04.1988 and regularly worked till 03.10.1994, the date on which she resigned. It further appears that appellant requested respondent No. 1 for giving approval on the appointment of respondent No. 4. It reveals from Annexure -A that the District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum vide his memo No. 9612 -16 dated 04.07.1994 communicated approval of the Government on the appointment of respondent No. 4. It appears that respondent No. 4 made repeated request for payment of her salary for the period 04.04.1988 to 03.10.1994, but in vein. Thereafter, she filed a writ application in the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) vide C.W.J.C. No. 3734 of 1999 (R), which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2009 with an observation that: If the work has been taken by the Managing Committee of the said School from the petitioner, it is the Managing Committee before whom the petitioner may make her grievances. It appears that thereafter respondent No. 4 filed L.P.A. which was also dismissed by Annexure -4. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 filed representation before the Managing Committee on 21.11.2001 for giving salary, in view of observation made by this Court. When the Managing Committee did not give any heed to her representations, she filed present application before the JET. The JET issued notice to all concerned parties and after considering the contention raised by them passed an order on 24.06.2006 directing the appellant to pay salary of the petitioner for the period 04.04.1988 to 03.10.1994. Aforesaid order challenged in this appeal.
(3.) IT is submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellant that the Jharkhand Educational Tribunal has dismissed the application of the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 31.03.2006 on the ground that her claim has already been rejected by this Court in the aforesaid writ application. It is further submitted that thereafter the Tribunal reviewed its earlier order dated 31.03.2006 and passed the impugned order. It is submitted that the JET has no jurisdiction to review its own order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the claim of the respondent No. 4 is of the year 1994, therefore, as per Section 10(1)(a) of the JET Act, this application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.;