Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8691 of 2018 Petitioner :- Maya Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is before this Court with request to issue direction to the respondents to provide proper pension and gratuity to her.
Record in question reflects that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Sarkada, Bijnor on 2.2.1976. Thereafter, she was promoted on the post of Principal on 5.3.1993. In pursuance thereof, she had taken over the charge of Principal of Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Udi, Etawah on 1.3.1996. Again, on 29.9.2000, she was promoted to the post of Vice Principal, DIET, Unnao and was transferred and posted as District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad. It is alleged that on 3.6.2003, the petitioner was placed under suspension due to some political pressure. On 28.1.2004, the Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra was appointed as enquiry officer. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 9.2.2004. Thereafter, the suspension order dated 3.6.2003 was revoked on 1.6.2004 and she was posted as Vice Principal, DIET, Bhogaon, Mainpuri on 5.7.2004. By the order dated 8.11.2004 the petitioner was awarded an adverse entry for the year 2004-05. On 7.7.2005 the petitioner was transferred to DIET, Etah and in pursuance of the aforesaid transfer order, she joined on the post of Vice Principal, DIET, Etah on 11.7.2005. Finally, the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioner precisely submits that the petitioner retired way back on 31.5.2006 but the department has not finalized the retiral dues on the ground that there were certain adverse entry against the petitioner. He states that the petitioner has already filed a representation dated 24.4.2017 before the Principal, DIET, Etah for redressal of her grievance, which is still pending. He has confined his prayer only to the relief that her representation dated 24.4.2017 may be considered by the appropriate authority.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that appropriate decision shall be taken by the second respondent in accordance with law.
No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.
In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation along with certified copy of this order before the competent authority, which is stated to be respondent No.2, the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Allahabad, who may consider the representation filed by the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law after taking necessary comments from the Principal, DIET, Etah, expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 RKP