Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the captioned writ application, following prayers have been made: (i) To direct the respondents, in particular respondent no. 4, to grant all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion to this petitioner with effect from 01.01.1988, inasmuch as, for no fault on the part of the petitioner, she was only appointed on 29.09.2009 whereas, she ought to have been appointed on 1.1.1988 itself, (ii) To direct the respondents, in particular respondent no. 4, to count the services of the petitioner from 1.1.1988, which is the deemed date of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the district of Sahebganj and (iii) For a direction commanding upon the respondents, in particular respondent no. 4, to pay the salary to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1988 to 28.9.2009, as for no fault on the part of the petitioner, she was not appointed on 1.1.1988 and instead she was appointed only on 29.9.2009, pursuant to the direction given by this Court dated 1.5.2008 in W.P. (S) No. 573 of 2006.
(2.) The brief facts, as has been averred in the writ application, are that the applications for appointment on the post of Teachers from eligible candidates were invited in pursuance to the office order of the District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj in the year 1987. The petitioner was one such applicant for the said post. In pursuance to her application, the petitioner was called to appear in interview and she was also asked to submit original certificate, which she duly submitted before the authorities. Since the order of appointment, was not issued inspite of eligibility of the petitioner and submission of the required documents, the petitioned filed representation on 28.01.1988 vide Annexure-2 to the writ application followed vide representation dated 21.08.1988 and 23.08.1988 vide Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ application. However, one Mina Kumari Sah was appointed in place of the petitioner due to connivance and patronage of the respondents-authorities. On 20.06.2005, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj, giving full details of her viz Mina Kumari Sah. Since the representation submitted by the petitioner did not evoke any response, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 573 of 2006 before this Court, which was disposed of on 01.05.2008 with direction to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, to take a decision, if not already taken on the basis of the enquiry report dated 28.12.2004, as evident from Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Since the order passed on 01.05.2008 in W.P. (S) No. 573 of 2006 was not complied with, the petitioner filed a Contempt Case (C) No. 438 of 2008 and after filing of the said contempt petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj by rising from deep slumber and inertia, directed that the appointment of Mina Kumari Sah be cancelled and the petitioner be appointed, which is evident from Annexure-8 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed vide office order dated 29.09.2009 and the appointment of the petitioner was made as per conditions of service, which was in vogue on 01.01.1988 vide Annexure-9 to the writ application. The petitioner joined on 03.10.2009, as an Assistant Teacher in the Upgraded Girls' Middle School, Mandri, Mirzachowki in the district of Sahebganj. From the date of joining on the said post, the petitioner has been discharging her duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities. Since the benefits of seniority, promotion, increments and other benefits with effect from 01.01.1988 has not been extended for the purpose of pensionary benefits after her retirement, the petitioner submitted representations on 07.04.2011 vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition and also another detailed representation was filed by the petitioner on 02.12.2014 vide Annexure-11 to the writ application, which was followed by another reminder vide Annexure-12 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not extending the benefits to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1988, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the petitioner was appointed by the order of the District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj vide Memo dated 29.09.2009, which was issued in accordance with the then appointment rules and conditions of service, which was in vogue on 01.01.1988 and in view of the terms of appointment order, the respondents ought to have extended all consequential benefits with effect from 01.01.1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was kept out of services with effect from 01.01.1988 to 28.09.2009, for no fault on her part, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary for the interregnum period i.e. from 01.01.1988 to 29.09.2009 and the said period be counted for seniority and service benefits right from 01.01.1988 along with other consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents in not extending the benefits of seniority and other consequential benefits is in breach of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300 -A of the Constitution of India and the normal Rules of 'No work No pay' is not applicable to the present case. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following citations: - (i) in the case of State of Punjab & Another-versus Surinder Pal Singh & Another, 2009 17 SCC 659 para 5, (ii) in the case of State of Haryana & Ors.-versus Dinesh Kumar, 2008 3 SCC 222 para 33 and (iii) in the case of Union of India & Ors.-versus Satya Prakash Vasisht, 1994 Supp2 SCC 52, para 54.;