IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7233 (SS) OF 2001 Smt. Nandi Joshi, W/o Late Sri Devki Nandan Joshi, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Suala, District, Champawar. …………Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Education Department, Dehradun Uttaranchal. 2. Director of Education (Basic) Uttaranchal Shasan, Dehradun. 3. Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Kuman Mandal, Nainital. ………..Respondents. Sri K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the State. Dated: 03.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give the service benefits to the petitioner since 1978. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to give service benefits to the petitioner in compliance of the Govt. Order dated 20.07.1979. Briefly stated, the petitioner was initially appointed as Gram Sevika. Government took a decision in the year, 1967 to abolish the post of Gram Sevika and the service of the Gram Sevika was absorbed in Education Department from Planning Department. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide appointment letter dated 22.11.1967. In compliance of that letter, the petitioner joined her service in Girls Primary School, Barakot, Distt. Almora on 01.12.1967. On 20.07.1979, the State of U.P. issued a Govt. Order. Relevant portion of the said G.O. is to the following effect:- “ekU;rk izkIr xSj ljdkjh twfu;j gkbZLdwy ds izf’kf{kr v/;kid@v/;kfidkvksa ds izf’k{k.k dh C;oLFkk fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa vfrfjDr f’k{kk funs’kd ¼csfld½ ds v)Z 'kkldh; i= la[;k lk0 03&13341@fnukad 21 fnlacj] 1978 ds lanHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs’k gqvk gS fd 'kklu us ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd%& ¼1½ 30 twu] 1978 dks ftu vizf’kf{kr v/;kid @ v/;kfidkvksa dh lsok 10 o"kZ ;k 10 o"kZ ls Åij gks pqdh gS mUgs ch0Vh0lh0 izf’k{k.k ls NwV ns nh tk,A ¼2½ mDr fu/kkZfjr frfFk ij ftu vizf’kf{kr v/;kid @ v/;kfidkvksa dh lsok 5 o"kZ ;k ikap ls Åij ijUrq 10 o"kZ ls de gS muds fy;s dk;Zjr v/;kid izek.k&i= ijh{kk dh O;OkLFkk dh tk,A ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus okyksa dks ch0Vh0lh0 izf’k{k.k ls NwV ns nh tk,A bl ijh{kk esa d{kk 5 Lrj dh fgUnh] xf.kr] lksf’ky LVMht ,oa foKku ds pkj iz'u i= gksaxs rFkk d{kk f’k{k.k izk;ksfxd ijh{kk yh tk,A izR;sd izf’k{kkFkhZ ls 15@: ijh{kk 'kqYd fy;k tk;A” The State of U.P. applied the said G.O. in Primary School untrained teacher. The State of U.P. issued a Government Order on 18.03.1991, where it was declared that the teachers, who have not completed five years of service on 30.06.1989, they will be given training of two years through correspondence on payment of Training Fee of Rs. 1000/(,d gtkj :Ik;s) 500/ per year and the candidates who succeed, shall be given B.T.C. Certificates. The petitioner has submitted that he has sent representations on 18.078.1980, 22.08.1985, 15.05.1988, 01.07.1989, 21.02.1990, 20.04.1990 and 24.04.1994 before the respondents authority. On 03.07.1995, District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Pithoragarh requested the Assistant Director (Basic) Kumaon Mandal, Nainital to treat the petitioner as a trained teacher as per Govt. Order issued from time of time. The Regional Director (Basic) Education, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital vide letter dated 23.09.1995 exempted the petitioner from B.T.C. Training as she has completed more than ten years of service. The petitioner preferred a representation before Director of Education (Basic) and (Madhyamik) Uttaranchal Shasan, Dehradun on 21.09.2001 requesting to give her service benefits in compliance of the Gov.t Order dated 20.07.1979, but of no avail. The grievance of the petitioner is that service benefits are not being given to her as has been granted in accordance with the G.O. date20.07.1979 as well as explanation made by the Director of Education. A counter affidavit has been field, where in paragraph 8 it has been stated as under:- “8. that in reply to the contents of para 11 of the writ petition, it is submitted that no dispute regarding the pendency of the representation, but the petitioner has been paid all the dues after retirement for which she was entitled and in regard to the case of revised pay as per recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has not applied for the said benefit, even after prior to the retirement or after retirement, as and when she will applied, the case of the petitioner shall be considered.” The petitioner has already retired, and therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner With regard to the service benefits pension, gratuity etc in view of the Government Order dated 20.07.1979. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 03.03.2006 Rathour