CW 6381/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.6381/2006 Smt. Sheela Kumari Versus State & (2) Ors. Date of Order ::: 12/12/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sunil Samdaria, for petitioner Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State Instant petition has been filed raising grievance that despite petitioner reported for duty on her transfer to Chhitroli (Sanganer- Jaipur) on 11/10/04 (Ann.4) merely on the premise of non-availability of Last Pay Certificate (LPC) and service record, inasmuch as respondents withheld her salary without any fault attributable to her. Initially petitioner while working as Teacher Gr.III in Govt. Middle School, Baldharkbha (Panchayat Samiti, Baneda) Bhilwara was transferred to Jobner vide order dt.28/09/02 (Ann.2), pursuant to which she joined on 09/10/02 and thereafter was transferred to Palu Khurd, Dudu (Jaipur) vide order dt.15/09/04 (Ann.3) where she joined on 24/09/04 but was re- transferred to Govt. Middle School, Chhitroli (Sanganer-Jaipur) vide order dt.30/09/04 (Ann.4) – in pursuance whereof she was relieved on 09/10/04 and she reported for duty at Chhitroli CW 6381/07 //2// on 11/10/04 but when her salary was not released on account of non-availability of her last pay certificate and service record having not been received from place of her earlier posting at Bhilwara, to which she made representation to District Education Officer Jaipur. However, the Principal of School as an interim arrangement asked her to report in Govt. School, Raj-Ka- Nohra vide letter dt.14/03/05 (Ann.6) but she was again asked to report back to her posting place at Chhitroli (Sanganer) vide order dt.03/10/05 (Ann.7) but still in absence of LPC & service record, respondents withheld her salary and also did not permit her to join at Chhitroli (Sanganer). Hence this petition. Initially, interim order was passed by this Court on 25/07/07 directing respondents to allow the petitioner to join her duty at Govt. School, Chhitroli and as regards payment of her salary, respondents were directed to produce her service record as well as LPC on next date (24/08/07). However, further order was passed on23/04/08 directing respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner as she was permitted to report for duty on or before 7th day of each month. Counsel for petitioner submits that CW 6381/07 //3// petitioner has been paid regular salary from 18/08/07 only and her grievance remained to be redressed is that despite initially having reported for duty on transfer to Chhitroli and continued to work there, without any reasonable cause, her salary was withheld and as regards availability of her LPC & service record from Bhilwara, it is an administrative matter which was not under her control and in such circumstances, on account of non-availability of her LPC & service record, respondents were not justified in withholding salary. In their reply, respondents have inter- alia averred that petitioner has remained on earned & medical leave for period in between 11/10/04 & 12/03/05, details whereof are stated in para 4 of the reply. It has also been averred that letters were sent to her for reporting on duty to which she failed and that being so, salary was not paid. During arguments, Government Counsel from the record has brought to the notice of this Court that as per pay bill dt.09/05/08, she was paid arrears of salary of Rs.45,569/- after deductions of Rs.10,301.36p., which according to petitioner's Counsel is not the outstanding salary for intervening period having been CW 6381/07 //4// arbitrarily withheld by respondents. Having perusal material on record with the assistance of Counsel for parties, I find that facts are not clear as to what was the salary remained outstanding & payable by respondents for intervening/leave period. All these facts being disputed cannot be resolved in instant petition for want of proper pleadings on record. Her basic grievance raised herein that she was not permitted to join on duty, has been redressed, may be under interim orders of this Court and emoluments have also been paid to her as alleged by respondents for the period during which she was allowed to continue; and as regards intervening period in dispute, as contended by her Counsel that she was not permitted to report for duty back to Chhitroli on 03/10/05 (Ann.7), contrary to which, as pointed out by respondents, petitioner remained on leave for one pretext or the other, all these aspects certainly cannot be looked into by this Court. However it is made clear that petitioner may make fresh representation stating complete facts in details raising her grievance which still remains to be redressed either for salary CW 6381/07 //5// of intervening period or of leave period, if any. If such a representation is made by her, competent authority may objectively consider the same and pass a speaking order within three months from submission of representation, ibid and still feels aggrieved whereof, petitioner will be free to avail of remedy under law. It appears that whole dispute arose only because of her LPC & service being not made available from her place of earlier posting, the respondents may ensure its availability forthwith to competent authority for redressal of her grievance in order to avoid any future complications. With these directions (supra), writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/6381CW06-1212-Rep.doc