(5^ .,4 F -3?S^- /K HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1079 of 2002 Petitioner Smt Anjiixa Ishaque, W/o Shri Zia Ishaque, aged about 62 years, (Retired In-charge Principal Devaki Naadan Municipal Corporation Guls' Higher Secondaiy School, BUaspur), R/o Opposite BihadTa&ies, High Court Road, Bilaspur(Chhatdsgarh), Versus Respondeate 1, Murdcipal Corporation, BUaspiir, Tlirough ifs Commissioner, BUaspur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Mayor-in.-CouncU, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspiir, Through it's Coianiissioner, BUaspzir (Chhattisgarh). 3. StateofChIiattisgarh,Through Principle Secretaiy, Depaitment of Local Self Govemment, Gtovemment of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan,Raipur (Chliattisgai'h), Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Petltioner by Shri K. A. Ansad, Senior Advocate wifh Shri M. K. Siaha, Advocate, Respondents No. 1 and 2 by Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Advocate. Respondent No.3 by Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Advocate, ORAL ORDER ( 3rd Jaauary, 2006) The foUowmg order ofthe Court was passed by Satish K. Agaihiotri^ J- 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner who was workuig as Principal ia Devaki Naadan Girls Higher Secondaiy School, BUaspiir, seekiag a declaration fhat fhe petitioner be deemed as promoted on llie post of Principal w.e.f. 18.11.1996. VMe oider dated 18.11.1996 (Annexure P/8) whereby fhe petitioner was pronioted to the post of Prmcipal by fhe Coraniissioner, Municipal Corporation, BUaspur. The petitioner has also prayed for conseqziential benefits of difference of wages aad retiral beuefits. The undisputed facts ia nutsheU are fhat the petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Teacher on 7.9.1960. She was proiaoted to the post of Lectarer on 22.8.1976. Thereafter she was promoted to the post of Vice Principal on 29.8.1986, The Respondents No. 1 aad 2 vide order dated 18.11.1996 proraoted fhe petitioner to fhe post of Principal aad posted at Devakmaadan Girls Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur. Prior to the appoiatment order dated 18.11,1996 fhe Municipal Coq:)oration resolved on 15.11.1996 to proniote fhe petitioner to fhe post of Prmcipal along wifh ofher persons who were proinoted to dtfferent posts. The Respondent No.l vide letter dated 30.11.1996 (Annexure R-l(B)} wrote to fhe Secretary, Goveniment of Madhya Pradesh, Local Admmistration Department for granting approval for proniotion of fhe petitioner on the post of PriDicipal on fhe basis of nierit-cuDi-seniority as coateniplated under Section 58(1)(iii) of the Chhatdsgarh/Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Acf). The Respondent No.3 vide its letter dated 11.9.1997 (Aniiexure R-l(C)} returaed the fUe of approval wifh certam objectious that fhough 5 years confidential reports (A.C.R.) were considered biit weightage to fhe academic quaJification was given which is not in accordance with fhe rules. In addition to tiiis one mark was awarded for each year's seniority which was not necessary as fhe gradation Mst was prepared on the basis of seniority. It was du-ected in fhe letter that fhe departxnental pix>inotion cominittee would be immediately convened aad recoramendations be inade ia accordance wifh law, The same was du-ected to be sent to the Goveninient iairaediately. On 15.11,1999 {Annexure R-l(E)} fhe Respondent No,l passed an order fhat the State Goveminent vide its letter dated 11.9,1997 has directed to consider fhe case of fhe Principal/Vice-Priacipals/Lecturers for prom.otion by the departmental proiaotion Coniimttee(D.P.C.) ia accordance wifh law. It was clearly stated fhat fhe departDaiental proniotlon coiainittee would be held imniediately aad fhe recommesidations would be sent to fhe GoveraEaent for fiirfhier action. This order was coiniaiinicated to aU conceraed. The petitioner retibred on 31.12.2001 on attaming fhe age of siiperaiiniiation. Shri K, A, Ansari, learaed senior Advocate wifh Shri M.K, Sinha, leamed Advocate appearmg for petitioner subinits fhat fhe petitioner had acquired legal right on fhe basis of her proinotion order to fhe post of Prmcipal, passed by the Respondents No, 1 and 2 and fhe petitioner was further permitted to contmue to perforai job responsibility of fhe Prmcipal tUl she rctired on superaanuation. Learaed counsel submits that fhe Respondents No. 1 aad 2 by not coiaplying wifh the direction of fhe State Goveraxnent caanot deprive the petitioner froin her right aad consequential benefits. Learaed counsel furfher contends that fhe petitioner has been paid pensionary benefits ia accordance wifh the pay scale offhe Vice Principal. Shri A. S, Kachwaha, learaed counsel appearing for fhe Respondents No. 1 aad 2 per contra siibmits that the petitioner was performuig fhe job ofthe Principal not as Prmcipal but as Incharge Principal. Leamed counsel has no rcply to fhe qiieiy as to what fhe Corporation had done pursuant to the letter dated 11.9.1997 of the State Govemnient/Respondent No.3. Shri Saadeep Dubey, leamed Govt. Advocate appearmg for the Respondent No,3 siibmits that it was for fhe Municipal Corporation to coniply with the letter dated 11.9.1997 offhe State Goveraraent ao.d to sead the reconiniendatlon back. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 have not corapUed with fhe direction of the State GovemEaent and as such 8. approval as contexsiplate.d zinder section 58(1)(m) of fhe Act, 1956 could not be graated. I have heard learaed counsel for fhe parties aad perused the docunients appended to fhe writ petition as weU as to fhe retum filed by fhe respondents. It is clearly estabUshed fhat the petitioner was proinoted as Pruicipal vide resolution dated 15.11,1996 passed by fhe Standiog Coininittee of fhe Corporation and the order dated 18,11,1996 passed by fhe Respondent No.l. The conipUaiice of the provisions of Section 58(1)(iii) offhe Act, 1947 has to be done by fhe Corporation, The petitioner had rightiy expected her position as Prmcipal aad had accordingly worked in the schooL The Respondente No. 1 and 2 had not taken any steps to comply with fhe direction of the State Govt. dated 11.9.1997 {Aimexurc R-l(C)} of fhe State Goveminent, The petitioner has acqiiired right by virtue of the fact that she was graated promotion and had rcceived fhe order accordirigly froia fhe Respondents No. 1 and 2, The petitioner had also perfomied her job responsibility of the Pnncipal tUl she attaiaed fhe age of superannuation. For fhe reasons stated above, fhe Respondents No. 1 and 2 are dirccted to hold a D.P.C. wifhm a period ofone month from today for obtamiag approval of fhe State Goveraiaent as 011 18.11.1996. The petitioner wiU be entitled to aU fhe consequential benefits. The petition is accordiagly allowed. No order as to costs. Certifie-d copy, as per Rules. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Thakur