^ 'u./ cf v Appllcants -t- BBK3RE THE STATE ADMINISTSATIVE TRIBUNALs MADHYA PRADESH RAIPUR BENCH.- L^ ^C^ 3 V^ID^ : Smt. Rose Merry AnthDny aged <^-^ years widow of Bas'pkrishna Kapoor^ resident of Station Road,Durg (H.P,) Versus Non-a^pUcants l^- State Government of Madhya Rradesh, Through the Secretary^ School Bducation Department^ M^P. Vallabh Bhawan, BHOPAL 2^ Distrlct Bducatlon Officer, Durg. APPLICATICN UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNALS ACT, 1985* : The igparticulars of the petition are catalogued belo^^ ^^^"^^ ,^ .B<*% j ^o H!GHCOURTOFCHHArnSGARH:B!LASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI IVSANSNDRA MOHAN SHRJVASTAVAJ. APPLiCANT NON-APPLICANTS Writ Petition (S$ Smt, Rose Merw Anthony Versvs State Government of'Madhya Pradesh and another FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude ?^r-;.^ <-. .•..'€""-. j ,^ ':NS.. yr ^ HIGH COURT OF SlnaSe Bench: Hon'bte Shri Manindra F^ohan Shrivastava^L APPLiCANT NON-APPLICANTS Writ (S) Smt. Rose Merry Anthony Versus State Government of Madhya Pradesh and another Present: Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivsdi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passedon^/06/2010) This petition has been fi!ed by the petitioner aggrieved on account of jnaction on the part of the respondents in not issulng any order for her joining nor allowing her to join her duties. The petitioner has also clalmed baclc and also for deciaration that the entire period, during which, she has not ai!owed to join her dutjes. be counted for a!l purposes and service benefits. (2). Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 10-02-1968. It is her case that from 13-03-1973 to 30-04- 1974, she worked in Subhash Primary Schooi, Durg. Further case ot" the pstitioner is that because of illness, the petitioner remained absent from her duties after 30-04-1974 for a period of six months. Thereafter, when the petitioner submitted her joining along with medical certificate, the forwarded the same to the District Education Offlcer for grant of pemijssion to aiiow the petitioner to join her duties, but.the petitioner was not allowed to join nor any order has been passed. When in of representations, no -1. '?'•n^ was paid, a tegal notice was through counse! on 07"05SB1999 (Annexure A-4). (3) Submission of counse! for the petjtioner is that Inaction on the part of the respondents in not issuing any order pursuant to the JQJning submitted by the petitioner is iilega! and arbitraiy. It is further submitted that as no chsrge sheet has ever been served on the petjtloner aIJegJng -any misconduct based on her absence nor any order of punishment as ever inflicted^the ought to have to join her and work on the post. (4) Per contra, submission of iearned counsei for the respondents is that the averment regarding submission of medicai certlficate and applicatJon six months of is incorrect. The then his 17-06-2002 informed the Biock Education Officer, Durg that the petlt'oner is remalnlng from her duties from 30-04-1974 without any appjication. It has also been in the aforesaid communication that no appiJc-atJon joining six months submjtted nor the ever any joining appiEcation of the petitloner. Accordlng to the respondsnte. joining (Annexure A-3) fiied by the petltioner Is a forged document. The petitioner eversince 30-04-1074 did not present for her dutJes and ©hehas continuously (5) Along with the return, a communication 17-06-2002 (Annexure R-t) ofthe then Head Master Mr. Jagjit Raman Sharma has been filed wherein It has that the petitioner remained from her from 30-04- 1974 without any appiication and even six months, she did not submit any nor herseif for or any appiJcatJon. !t has been categorically stated that the document (Annexure A-3) is a forged -and not contain the signature of concerned officer. In the rejoinder, It ^. ^•yy^-^ ^^•••'^"^ ^' fe;.^. 1 ^^NM ^ . "%s^ ,s- has been averred by the petitioner that the petitioner has been pressurized during the pendency of the case to give such a letter. Jn this view of the matter, it is a seriousjy disputed question of fact whether the document containJng the signature ofthe concerned Head was fcrged. (6) !t is rather surprising that the petitioner did not take any whatsoever eversince the date she submitted her joining. AccordJng to the petitioner, she submitte.d her joining report appllcation along wlth medica' certificate vvhich was fomarded by the then Head Jagjlt Raman Sharma to the District Education Officer, Durg. Except the communicatjon .Annexure A-3, there is no document on to show that 30-04-1974, the petitioner took any to ventiiate her grlevance before any authority, Petitloner has not on any representation to show that from year 1974 tili giving notice in 1999, any thing was done. The onjy document by the to her contentlon that she submitted her jojning after six months and her jolning appllcation aiong with medical certificate was forwarded by the Head Master of the School to the District Education Officer itself is under serious dispute and the concerned Head Master vlde his communication 17-OS-2002 (Annexure R-1) has outright denied that he any such Setter and has categoricajjy that the signature shown In the document are not his signature. From the and clrcumstances of the case, one thing is very clear that from year 1974 till giving !ega! notice dated 07-05-1999, the petitioner did not do anything, much less approaching any Court of taw for redressai of her grievance. The attending facts and circumstances particularly letter dated 17-06-2002 (Annexure R»!) (ends support to the case of the respondents that the petitioner has abandoned her servlce eversince 1974. Submission of lea,rned counsel for the respondents that probabiy in view of sorne order passsd by the State Adminlstrative Tribuna! on 07-11-1998 (Annexure A-5) in Original Application No.936 of 1994 (I/. K. stSiSS3saaswi&:^ s^ss^ •^^i^"- •A- ^ Tn'pathi vs. ofM. P. snd Others), the petitioner decided for the first tlrne to approach the Court of law, and therefore, the document (Annexure A-3) fabricated by the petitioner by forging signature of the then Head Master raises serious doubt. (7) !n view of the above-stated facts and circumstances, particularly, as the petitioner was indolent and not vigiiant of her rights and did not steps for aSmost 25 years until she gave notice in the year 1999 followed by this petition, l am not inciined to exercise my discretionar/ jurisdjction under ArtJcle of the ConstEtution of India In favour of the petitioner. !t would be hov^ever open for the respondents to ho!d fact finding enquiry regarding genuineness of communication Annexure A-3. Petitioner would aiso free to -approach respondents on the said issue. (8) With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude T1J-X4ANE