^^?1 BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. W.P......-4Q.I.&...2005 SINfiLEBENCH Petitioner :- Shrimati SubhLaxmi, aged 46 years Daughter of Shri V.Y. Naidu, Quarter No.24/226, Civil Lines Kasaridih, Durg (C.G.) Versus Respondents:- ^Th -// ^yyw le State Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department^ D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur. District Education Officer, Dharsiva, District Raipur (C.G.) . ^'ty Block Education Officer, Dharsiva, y ^/ /. ^ "' ^ District Raipur (C.G.) <v^' ,...iy^.A--<*.^ .c.^cM^/y^^5 state Govt °fM-p •^v' W^.O'"/ Through-Secretary ^.v School Education Department, Ov" Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) ^ / Writ petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia A^- -<> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR /\r WRITPETmON No. 4018 of2005 PETITIQNER : Shrimati SubhLaxmi. VERSUS RESPONDENT8 : The State Govemment ofOihattisg^-h & Others. Post fbr pronouncement ofjudgment on .^J.^day ofJanuary, 2010. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge u HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4018 of2005 PETmONER : Shrimati SubhLaxmi. VERSU8 RESPONDENT8 : The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh & Others. Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 QfThe Constitution Oflndia SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AtEnfliotri. J. '•;1 Present: Shri C.J.K.Rao., Advocate tbrthe petitioner. Shri A.V.Shri<fliar, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respoadents 1 to 3. JUDGMENT (Delivered on ..^J.day of January, 2010) By fhis petition-, the petitioner seeks a ^teclaration io the effect tiiat the petitioner has joined her duties w.e./ 26.7.1985 aad to grant consequential benefits. The tacts, m brief^ as projected by the petitioner are Ifaat the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 30.09.1982 and posted at Goveniment Primary School, Jora. On account ofher serious ailment, she could not attend her duties fr<an 4.7.1983 till 25.7.1985. Thereafter, on 26.7.1985, tiie petitioner joined her duties. The petitioner was asked to get herself exaaiiined from Civil Surgeon Raipur, and submit a fitness certificate vide order dated 21.7.1985 (Anne?@ure P/2) and fhe petitioner was resb-ained jfromjoining the duties. The respondent No. 2., vide order dated 8.4.88 (Anne^aire P/3) direct^l the re^p<mdent No. 3 to allow the petitioner to join her duties on certam ccmditions. However, the respondent No. 3 did not allow Ae petitioner to jom ter duties on the ground that the respondent No- 2 is the CK>mpetent officer ..^^;':-->.. ^.-- ,;^s^ "" 1 ^..,.^'J 't-^y' to pass an order for herjoining. The respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 21.4.88 infonned the respondent No. 3 that fhe respondent No. 3 oaa himself pass an order and allow the petitioner to jom her duties. However, till date, the petitioner has been restrained from joining her duties,due to wliich she is facmg greatfaardship. Thus, tihis petitioii. Notices were issued to tfae respondents in this petition on 21.09.2005. Thereafter, fhe matter was listed for hearing on 26.©8,2009en^>lmg tfae State/respondents to file retum. Again, when the matter was listed for hearing on 15.09.2009., having regard to the letfmrgy on tie part ofthe officer Incharge oftiie State/respondente, fhree weeks time to file retwn was yanted, subject to payment ofa cost ofRs. 2000/-. Despite that, the State/respondents have tailed to file any retum or to deposit tfae cost. Qn pemsal of fhe papers^ it appears fhat the petitioner has made an application on 24.10.2003 (Amiexure P/9) to tiie District Education QflRcer, Raipur stating fhat the petitioner remamed absent on aceount of her medical problems as she was not in a position to attend the office. Now the petitioner has been declared fit by fhe Medical Qfficer^ therefore, it was p-ayed that the petitioner be pemiitted to joia the office. It appears that tfie petitioner was not pemritted to join tte office despite production of medical certifiicate. The District Education Qfficer, for the first time acted on 21.7.1985 (^m^aire P/2) and infbrmed to the petitioner for submitting nwdical certificate. The medieal certificate was accordingly submitted. It appears Ifaat tiie matter was referred to fhe Deputy Director. The Deputy Director,, by order dated 7.8.88 (Annexure P/3) directed the Block Edacation Officer, Dharsiwa to permit the petitionCT to join her duties on submission of ..^•^A%^t>..., :^^ '^^ o medical Board certificate and afiidavit fbr not remaining absent in luture witfaout prior intimation and farther, the petitioner ^hall not claim the salary fbr the period she remained absent It was also one ofthe conditions that fhis would be the last opportunity to join ttie duty. Since the Block Education Officer .did not do aay tihdng, th©petitioner preferred an application befbre fhe Deputy Director, Education Raipur on 20.04.1988 (Annexure P/4). Again, the respondent No. 3 sent a memo to the Deputy Director, Education stating fhat ttie Deputy Director is the competent aufhority to pass any appropriate order. In tum Deputy Director issued a memo to tfae respondent No. 3 stating tiaat fhe case of the petitioner is being retumed back to hmi for tddng appropriate actioii as tfie respondent No« 3 is also compet^nt to pass apprqpriate orders fbr granting permission to the petitioner to join her duties. It is crystal clear fhat despite tihe order of the Qeputy Directar and submission of relevant documents, no action has been taken by the aulfaorities specially the respondent No. 3, till date. The petitioner has later on submitted various representations to Ifae Deputy Director^ Education, Raipur, respondent No. 2, respondent No. 3 and to the Education Minister, Govemment ofChhattisgarh, Raipur. Shri Rao, leamed counsel appearmg for the prtitioiier sutamits fhat Ihe petitioner is willing to forego her salary for tiie period she remained absent on the principle of 'no work, no pay?. The petition was filed on 17.08.2005 and notic®was isaied on 21.09.2005. Despite several opportunities ^"anted, the respoadent- authorities have not filed any retum, as atorestated m para 3 (supm). .,.^~" ^;. ^^m'•-^ 1 ^'r -w^ ^•'" •.'•-'•-£-•'-"' 4 H1 The petitioner has been put to harasjimeiit smce April, 1988 aad thereafter, fhe respondent autfiorities have also not taken aiiy steps by filing retum in the matter. 8. Having regard to fhe facts situation of fhe casie wherein tfae Dq>uty Director, Education has directed the respondent No. 3 to permit the petitioner to join the diity vide memo dated 08.04.1988 (Aaiaexure P/3) and fhereafter^ on 21.04.1988 (Annexure P/6), the responde^t No. 3 i.e. Block Education Qfficer, Dharsiwa has not car^d to comply with the afbresaid order. Accordingly, fhe Deputy Director, Ediicatioi^ Raipyr, is directed to look into the grievaiice of the {^titianer ^md ensure compliance ofthe above stated orders/communication issued by him, as expeditiously as possible, preferaMy wifhin a period ofsix weeks fiwn the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. 9. For tiie reasons stated hereix^above, the writ {^tition is allowed partly to (he above extent with cost, quantified to be Rs. 50(X)/- payable to the petitioner witiiin a period ofthree weeks. 10. The State may recover titie said amoutit from tihe officers respoiisible for delay and harassment to the petitioner, ifso advised. Sd/- SatishK.Ag»ibot" Amit