IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.269 of 2005 Date of decision: 1st August, 2008. Usha Rani Sood ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr.B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned Tribunal dated November 2, 2004 passed in O.A. No.2661 of 1999 whereby the original application filed by the present petition was allowed to a limited extent only. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was posted as Central Head Teacher at Government Primary School, Kullu. She was to retire on 31.10.1998. Admittedly prior to her retirement her name had been recommended for 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 conferment of National Award. The rules provide that a teacher who is a National Awardee is entitled to extension of two years service. Though the case of the petitioner for grant of National Award in her favour was under consideration at the time of her retirement, no award had actually been awarded in her favour till that date. Consequently, she was retired from service on 31.10.1998 and all consequential pensionary and retiral benefits were paid to her. On 6th April, 1999, the petitioner was informed that she had been selected for grant of National Award by the Government of India. Thereafter, on 19th May, 1999 the District Education Officer, Kullu sent a communication to the petitioner informing her that she should reach Delhi before 5th September, 1999 to receive the National Award. On 28th May, 1999 the District Primary Eduycation Officer, Kullu asked the petitioner to deposit the retiral benefits paid to her along with interest so that she could be given extension in job in terms of the rules. The petitioner complied with the said directions and deposited the retiral benefits as well as interest on 3.6.1999. Thereafter, on 9.7.1999 the petitioner was again offered employment as Central Head Teacher but at a different school. 3 The claim of the petitioner is that she should be paid salary for the period from Ist November, 1998 till 30th November, 1999 when she actually joined after re- employment. This claim was contested by the State on the ground that she had not worked for this period and therefore she could not be granted pay and salary for this period. The learned Tribunal rejected the plea of the petitioner for grant of wages for this period. The Tribunal however granted relief to the petitioner to the limited extent that the amount of interest recovered from her along with the retiral benefits was ordered to be refunded to her. We have heard Sh.B.C. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh.R.M. Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. The petitioner has claimed salary for the period after her superannuation on 31.10.1998 i.e. w.e.f. 1.11.1998 till 30th November, 1999. This period can be divided into two parts. One is the period from Ist November, 1998 to 8th July, 1999 and the second is the period from 9th July, 1999 to 30th November, 1999. We shall deal with both these periods separately. As far as the first period is concerned, admittedly as per the policy of the State only a teacher who is a recipient of a National Award is entitled to grant 4 of extension of service. As on the date of the retirement of the petitioner she had not received the National Award. It may be true that her name had been recommended but this recommendation could have been accepted or rejected. The recommendation by itself did not confer any right on the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner thereafter had received and accepted the retiral benefits. The first intimation with regard to the conferment of the award was received by her on 6th April, 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to deposit the retiral benefits. She deposited the same on 3rd June, 1999 and she was offered employment on 9th July, 1999. The case of the petitioner is a peculiar case which has to be decided in its own facts and circumstances. This is a case where extension is being granted after the person has already retired. Therefore, some formalities had to be completed including the re- deposit of the retiral benefits before she could be granted extension in service. We in fact find that there has not been any inordinate delay on the part of the respondents and after the deposit of the retiral benefits the extension was offered to the petitioner soon thereafter on 9th July, 1999. She has actually not worked during this period also. We therefore reject the claim of the petitioner for this period. 5 As far as the period from 9th July, 1999 to 30th November, 1999 is concerned the case of the petitioner is without any merit whatsoever. The petitioner was offered extension and was offered a post where a vacancy was available on 9th July, 1999. The petitioner is solely responsible for not joining the posting which she was offered on 9th July, 1999. The petitioner chose not to join at that place and waited for a vacancy to occur at a place which suited her and then joined on Ist December, 1999. She therefore is not entitled to any salary from 9th July, 1999 to 30th November, 1999 also. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. August 1, 2008 ( V. K. Ahuja ), J. PV