^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL NoJ31 / 2010 ..)-'' APPELLANT PETITIONER .o^S^ ^}"^^Avy' r^::yy ••"'" ^' \>'-''' ?"'. A$Y-\-'"'' RESPONDENTS Ram Prakash Dbtit, Aged about 73 years, S/o Late Ravati Raman Dixit, Retired Deputy Director, Education, Permanent Resident : Poonam Sports, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur-fC.G.) VERSUS :1. 2. 3. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh), Through - The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, (Manfa-alaya), Raipur, Distt. Raipur-fC.G.) / The Commissioner, School Education Directorate of Public Instruction, Raipur-(C.G.) Joint Director, Public Instruction, Raipur-(C.G.) ^ ^-°- WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2fl) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006. Instant appeal is arising out of impugned order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W;P.(S) No. 1643/05 (O.A.No.2645 of 1997) between Ram Prakash Dixit Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) 85 Others. The appellant sS </ ^l'i1^ 11^-^ ^;'l HieH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M.QUDDUSI <& HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. JJ. WRIT APPEAL N0.139/2010 APPELLANT (Petitioner) RESPONDENTS Vs Ram Prakash Dixit State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of C.6.) <& others PresentA Mr. Virendra Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amrito Das, Panel Ldwyer for the State. ,it,;!iia.!t*si-s ORAL JU&6MENT (Passed on 6th May, 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard on I.A. No.l, application for condonation of delay as fhe instant writ appeal has been preferred with a delay of 12 days. 2. Considering the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinioh that delay is liable to be condoned. Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned. 3. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. The writ appellant has filed the instant writ appeal being partially aggrieved by the oral order dated 5.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.1643/2005. 5. Origindlly, an Original Application was filed by the writ appellant before the then M.P. State Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur, which was registered as O.A. No.2645/95. However, after dissolution of the State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and r&gistered asW.P. (S) No.1643/05. 1 '.^. .,sSS«sfsi l^^-t' 6. Brief facts of the case are that the writ appellant, who was working as officiating beputy Director of Education, Mahasamund, applied for extension of his services with an undertaking that in case after his retirement on 31.12.1996 the Government could not extend his services, he will work till end of the session and will not claim any salary or allowances. His case was under consideration but in the meantime he stood retired in the afternoon of 31.12.1996. On 1.1.1997 the then School Education Department, 6overnment of M.P. sent a letter No. F 1-72/96/20-4 dated 1.1.1997 to the Joint Director, Public Instructions, Raipur directing that the writ appellant may not be relieved even after 31.12.1996 and a proposal along with necessary information be sent for extension of the writ appellant's services for one year. This letter Was sent by the Additional Secretary in the School Education Department of then State of M.P. The writ appellant's matter remained under consideration at the government level and he continued to work not only up to end of the session but till his relieving which was communicated to him vide order dated 6.9.1997 by the Joint Director, Public Instructions, Raipur Division, Raipur. . 7. The State Sovernment took decision on 29.8.1997 to the effect that after due consideration the matter relating to grant of extension of one year to the writ appellant is rejected. In the endorsement it was mentioned that copy be given to the writ appellant be relieved and he may hand over his charge to Senior Officer. Consequently, the writ . appellant was relieved on 9.9.1997. 8. The question befbre us for consideration is regarding payment of salary for the period for which the writ appellant ^_. 19 A1' .^y ^;?:s':<^;'^ ^??^ S; i»i® continued in service even after attaining the age of superannuation. 9. As mentioned above, the Original Application was filed for that purpose which was transferred to this Court and re- registered as writ petitionand the same was decided by the learned Single Judge holding that since the undertaking was given by the writ appellant was to the effect that till the end of session he will work and he would be entitled to get salary only after the end of session till his relieving. 10. We have perused the orders passed by the State Government. 11. The undertaking given by the writ appellant in the form submitted much prior to his retirement for his extension for one year, but the State Government vide order dated 1.11.1997 had not indicated that the writ appellant shall continue on the basis of his undertaking. Only mention in that letter is that there was direction from the Secretary to the Chief Minister for one year extension and therefore the State Sovernment directed that the writ appellant should not be relieved from his post and thus, he continued bn the post of Deputy Director of Education, Mahasamund till 9.9.1997 without any undertaking. It is also a fact that the salary for that post was sanctioned by the State Sovernment and no one was posted as Deputy Director of Education in place of the writ appellant during his working on that post after superannuation and as such salary for the post of Deputy Director has not been disbursed at all to anyone. rurther, even if it is'taken into account, the undertaking given by the writ appellant to the fiovernment was till the end of session but due to that undertaking it cannot be said that even if there is a direction fr'om the State Sovernment to continue on the post of Deputy Director, he woufd not be entitled to get Nie salary. i •7& M'&S- ^^•^? ..-B*» 12. Therefore, for all purposes we are of the opinion that the writ appellant is entitled to get the salary for the period he actually worked on the post of beputy Director, Education, Mahasamund. 13. Accordingly, we allow this writ appeal to the extent that the writ appellant shall be entitled to get salary after the date of his superannuation till the date of his relieving under the direction of the State Sovernment but for the purposes of payment of salary, the State Sovernment shall take a decision whether the appellant shall be treated as reemployed or not and his salary shall be paid according to the decision taken by the State Government regarding his re-employment or extension of services, as the case may be. Further, for the period for which the writ dppellant uvas paid salary, he would not be entitled to get any pension in view of Rule 7 (2) of the Service Pension Rules, 1976 which provides that a government servant who having retired on a superannuation pension or retiring pension, is subsequently re-employed, shall not be entitled to a separate pension or gratuity for the period of his re-employment. 14. It is also made clear that continuity of the writ appellant after his superannuation and payment of salary to him will not affect his pension calculated till the date of his superannuation. However, if he has been paid pension for the period which he worked as Deputy &irector, Education, Mahasamund he would be entitled to get the salary for the said period. after deducting the amount which has already been paid to him as pension. 15. Thewrit appeal is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. Roshan/- Sd/- I.M.'Quddusi Judge ' Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge