THE HOH’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WA No.1867 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ appeal is ﬁled against the order dated 30-1- 2004 passed in WP No.4231 of 1993 by the learned single Judge of this Court only to the extent of denial of back wages while allowing the writ petition ﬁled by the writ petitioner- appellant herein. 2. The facts stated are: The writ petitoner-appellant herein was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in the 1st respondent-school with eﬀect from 20-1-1987 for a period of three months and thereafter the period was extended by one year. It is stated that the petitioner applied for maternity leave from 1-2-1989 to 31-3-1989 and during that time, the 1st respondent terminated her services by order dated 25-1-1989 with eﬀect from 31-1-1989. Questioning the said termination order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent and as the same could not be disposed of and no decision was taken on it, the petitioner ﬁled writ petition being WP No.14880 of 1990. This Court by order dated 13-12-1991 directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, on 28- 8-1992, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher afresh fixing the basic pay in that cadre. The petitioner joined duty without prejudice to her right to claim continuity of service etc. It is further stated that an enquiry was conducted and the 2nd respondent pursuant to the directions given in the earlier writ petition made certain recommendations to give the time scale admissible to her, reinstate her without any break in service and treat the period during which she was not in service as leave without pay etc. But, strangely the 1st respondent has not implemented the recommendation of the 2nd respondent, but appointed petitioner as Teacher in the basic time scale. 3. The petitioner as observed above, questioned this action of the 1st respondent in not implementing the recommendation of the 2nd respondent and not giving her the beneﬁts following therefrom. The learned single Judge by the impugned order having extracted the relevant portion of the recommendation of the 2nd respondent, observed that there was no reason why the 1st respondent has denied the beneﬁts to the petitioner, allowed the writ petition, but disallowed the back wages. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner-appellant herein was given the relief of continuity of services and appropriate time scale admissible to the post held by her and other beneﬁts ﬂowing out of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the directions of this Court in the impugned order. The recommendation of the 2nd respondent does not include the payment of back wages for the period during which she was out of service on account of maternity leave. Hence, as rightly observed by the 2nd respondent- Board and the learned single Judge, the petitioner is not entitled for back wages during the period she was out of service. 6. In the circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any merits in the writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ___________________ Sanjay Kumar, J Dated: 17-10-2011 Nrg.