Smt. Reena Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of..........on behalf of respondent no. 6 in which it has been asserted that the selection of the petitioner was not in accordance with rules and as a matter of fact there was no valid resolution in her favour on the basis whereof she performed her duties as shiksha mitra. a rejoinder-affidavit denying the said allegations has been filed. learned counsel for the petitioner further informs that the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has been informed in writing that the matter is unlisted and is running in this court in the computer list from 2.12.2009. inspite of the aforesaid knowledge learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 is not present.7. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for gaon samaj and learned standing counsel for the state authorities.8. the contention raised is that the government order dated 15.6.2007 does not extend any benefit of leave of the nature which has been impliedly sanctioned in favour of responmdent no. 6. the aforesaid claim appears to be correct. the government order does not empower the authorities to condone the absence beyond what has been provided for in the government order. the respondent no. 6 according to the impugned.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

1. The petitioner claims that she was selectd and appointed as Shiksha Mitra against the post which had fallen vacant on account of the absence of Smt. Gyanti Devi, respondent No. 6. The petitioner contends that since Smt. Gyanti Devi was absent for more than a year, the Village Education Committee had passed a resolution in her favour. A letter of appointment was issued on 29.9.2007. After having been appointed the petitioner claims that she was performing her duties and renewal of her appointment was also resolved by the Committee on 10.5.2008.

2. It is urged that in these circumstances there was no occasion to allow respondent No. 6 to come back and rejoin her post after such a long absence. The claim of respondent No. 6 was rejected by the Basic Education Officer on 22nd July, 2008 (a copy of the said order is Annexure-13 to the writ petition).

3. It appears that the matter was sought to be reviewed at the instance of respondent No. 6 and the Basic Education Officer reviewed the earlier order on 15.10.2008 which is under challenge in this petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that, firstly, the Basic Education Officer has no power to review his earlier order and, secondly, the long absence of respondent No. 6 was neither permissible nor could be condoned by the Basic Education Officer. It is provided in the Government order dated 15.6.2007 that maternity leave can be sanctioned only for three months at a time and that too even for two child births only. Learned Counsel contends that the aforesaid provision was not even applicable in the present case. Even otherwise, there was no other provision under which the respondent No. 6 could have sought leave and abandoned her teaching job as Shiksha Mitra.

5. The matter was entertained and an interim order was granted but the same was vacated on the ground that the caveator was not informed in spite of a caveat application having been filed. Learned Counsel contends thereafter affidavits have been exchanged and it is evident that the impugned order had been passed without notice or opportunity to the petitioner and without having any power to review the same.

6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 in which it has been asserted that the selection of the petitioner was not in accordance with Rules and as a matter of fact there was no valid resolution in her favour on the basis whereof she performed her duties as Shiksha Mitra. A rejoinder-affidavit denying the said allegations has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further informs that the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 has been informed in writing that the matter is unlisted and is running in this Court in the computer list from 2.12.2009. Inspite of the aforesaid knowledge learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 is not present.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for Gaon Samaj and learned standing counsel for the State authorities.

8. The contention raised is that the Government order dated 15.6.2007 does not extend any benefit of leave of the nature which has been impliedly sanctioned in favour of responmdent No. 6. The aforesaid claim appears to be correct. The Government order does not empower the authorities to condone the absence beyond what has been provided for in the Government order. The respondent No. 6 according to the impugned order itself was absent from 1.11.2005 till 25.2.2007.

9. It is, therefore, evident that the respondent No. 6 was absent for more than a year and the entire tenure of a Shiksha Mitra in a session is 11 months. Accordingly, the order passed by the Basic Education Officer on 22nd July, 2008 was in accordance with the said Government order. It did not require any review at his hand. The order dated 15.10.2008 proceed on an erroneous assumption and is untenable in the eyes of law. Even otherwise also it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice,

10. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 15.10.2008 is set aside. No order as to costs.