JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Ratan Kanwar Gaur widow of late Shri Gopinath Gaur, aged 77 years on the premise that her late husband was appointed as Senior Teacher with Johari Multi-Purpose Higher Secondary School, Ladnu by vide order dated 17-8-1959 which was a private education institution receiving grant-in-aid from the government. He was asked to officiate as Headmaster of the school for some time and thereafter on 22-1-1962 he was substantially appointed as headmaster w.e.f. 1-7-1961. When the academic session 63-64 was on the verge of closure, certain disputes erupted between him and the management of the institution. In this background when he applied for leave for 4 days during the academic session 1964-1965 the management committee arbitrarily refused the leave application and appointed one Vidhyanand Sharma as Headmaster of the School. Shri Gaur joined back on 14-7-1964. When he found that someone else has been appointed in his place and his services have been terminated, he submitted a protest petition to the management committee. When nothing has been done, he submitted a representation on 12-7-1964. It was thereafter that he filed appeal before Deputy Director Rajasthan under the Rules for payment of grant- in-aid to non-government educational institution in Rajasthan 1963. Inspector of the school in his report dated 11-5-1966 observed that the termination of service of Shri Gopinath Gaur has been made in clear violation of the grant-in-aid Rules. Even when the report of the Inspector was pending before the Appellate Authority, the State Government vide its order dated 21-7-1966 took over the management of the said school. When the grievances of the husband of the petitioner were not redressed, he filed writ petition No. 377/67. During the pendency of the writ petition the appellate authority passed the order dated 15-9-1967 conveying to Sh. Gopi Nath Gaur that even though the termination was not made in conformity with the provisions contained in the rules but still he was not entitled to unconditional reinstatement and that he is only entitled to leave salary as per rules and salary of three months in lieu of notice. In these circumstances, her husband upon being advised withdrew the writ petition with liberty to file fresh one to challenge such communication. He filed another appeal which was dismissed on 25-7-1969. In these circumstances, her husband upon being advised withdrew the writ petition with liberty to file fresh one to challenge such communication. He filed another appeal which was dismissed on 25-7-1969. It was against that he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1479/69 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 15-1-1974. In the judgment it is held that services of the late Sh. Gopinath Gaur were never legally terminated and therefore he should be deemed to have continued in service and be considered as an existing member of school staff as on 21-7-1966. According to Government order taking over the management of the school, he was entitled to be treated as Government servant subject to his being adjudged suitable after screening. The respondents however challenged the said judgment before Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 48/75 which was ultimately dismissed on 28-7-1984. During pendency of appeal, however, Sh. Gopinath attained the age of superannuation on 15-8-1977. 2. In the beginning of the year 1988 Sh. Gopinath Gaur received from the Government communication dated 8-1-1988 to inform him that he was not adjudged suitable by the screening committee in its meeting held on 6-7-1987. Aggrieved thereby Sh. Gopinath preferred a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition. No. 3495/90) which was allowed by learned Single Judge by order dated 13-5-1992 who quashed the order being laconic with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner to adjudge his suitability for giving him retiral/pensionary benefits. 3. When nothing was done by the respondents in compliance of the judgment dated 13-5-1992 to consider the case of the late husband of the petitioner afresh for adjudging his suitability for absorption, he made number of representations and finally he died on 4th May, 1993. In these circumstances, the petitioner got a legal notice for demand of justice served upon the respondents on 16-4-2002 and finally the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider suitability of her late husband and pass necessary orders for granting pensionary and other retiral benefits as also the pension in lieu of his service till his late husband was alive and thereafter the family pension to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum on such arrears. 4. 4. The respondents have contested the writ petition and argued that the screening committee was constituted in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition 3495/90. The respondents on recommendations of the screening committee vide their order dated 4-1-05 have adjudged the late husband of the petitioner as suitable for appointment on the post of headmaster.With regard to the retiral and other dues of the late husband of the petitioner and that of the petitioner herself, it was stated that the proceedings was already going on when the decision is taken by the Government, she shall be paid due amounts. This Court by its order dated 4-9-2006 expressed anguish that the decision which was required to be taken about four decades ago has been taken by the Government now and yet the same has not been executed by making payment of all pensionary and post retiral benefits including family pension to the petitioner. The respondents were, therefore, directed to make payment of the pensionary and post retirement benefits and also family pension for which the petitioner is entitled within a period of one month together with interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum. It was directed that in case compliance was not made within the aforesaid period of one month, the Director Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner shall file additional affidavit to explain the reasons for not doing so. When the matter was again listed in Court on 27-10-2006 and the Court was informed that the matter was still under process and necessary approval of the department of Finance was being obtained. Last opportunity was given to the respondents to make such compliance on or before 10-11-2006 failing which it was directed that the Secretary to the Government Department of Education and Director of Secondary Education shall remain present in Court in person on 13/11/2006. On 13-11-2006 the Court was informed that some compliance has been made and payment of all arrears of family pension with interest has been made to the petitioner. It was thereafter that the matter was finally heard. When the matter was listed on 27-11-2006 the arguments are concluded and judgment reserved. 5. On 13-11-2006 the Court was informed that some compliance has been made and payment of all arrears of family pension with interest has been made to the petitioner. It was thereafter that the matter was finally heard. When the matter was listed on 27-11-2006 the arguments are concluded and judgment reserved. 5. It appears from the order dated 4-9-2006 that this Court while directing the respondent to make the payment of all retiral/terminal dues of the late husband of the petitioner and the family pension of the petitioner within one month had virtually decided the writ petition. That would have been the end of the matter but for additional plea which the respondents have raised in an application filed by them on 27-11-2006 itself in which it has been stated that though payment of arrears relating to family pension to the tune of Rs. 2,53,150/- has been made to the petitioner, the screening committee had adjudged the late husband of the petitioner suitable for appointment on the post of headmaster and accordingly an order was passed on 13-1-92 but he concealed the material information from the Government and Screening Committee that after his removal from service, he was working as Senior Teacher in Saint Patrick School, Jodhpur from August 65 to 31-8-80 when the late husband of the petitioner was dismissed from Ladnu School w.e.f. 1-7-64 he joined services of the Saint Patrick School, Jodhpur and he was in the service of the Jodhpur School on 21-7-67 when the management of the Ladnu school was taken over by the Government. In other words, the respondents want to contend that the late husband of the petitioner was not in service of Ladnu School but was employed in Saint Patrick School, Jodhpur when the management of the school was taken over by the Government. Their case therefore is that sanction order dated 25-11-06 directing payment of arrears of family pension to the petitioner has been issued subject to the condition that the question with regard to being adjudged suitable for appointment shall be reconsidered by the screening committee. 6. Beside, another issue that needs to be examined is the prayer has been made by the petitioner that the case of her late husband should be directed to be considered for promotion. 6. Beside, another issue that needs to be examined is the prayer has been made by the petitioner that the case of her late husband should be directed to be considered for promotion. However, such a prayer cannot be accepted at this belated stage, particularly when the judgment pursuant to which he was screened for adjudging his suitability was passed by this Court as far back as on 13-5-1992 and now this petition which was filed in 2003 is being decided in the year 2007 when the husband of the petitioner is no more alive. But the other side of the picture is that in spite of the fact that this Court by its order dated 13-5-1992 directed the respondents to screen the case of the late husband of the petitioner when he was still alive, the respondent dealt with the matter in a callous and lackadaisical manner and delayed the proceedings of the screening so much that finally the consequential order of screening was passed as late as 14th March, 2005. 7. What is therefore to be examined is that whether the mere fact that the late husband of the petitioner after being removed/terminated from the service of Ladnu School joined the services of Jodhpur School, would cease to be entitled to grant of relief aforesaid in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in writ petition directing his screening and on that basis granting him consequential benefits. It remains a fact that petitioner's late husband was removed from service without any valid order of termination and without making compliance of any rule or procedure or law. It is also undisputed that when the School was taken over, an appeal against such order of termination which was already pending with the Director, Education Department, Rajasthan namely, Appellate Authority. The late husband of the petitioner had filed appeal as he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Mere pendency of appeal or thereafter further challenge to order of termination in writ petition did not and in fact could not create an embargo on his right to earn a respectful livelihood elsewhere he could not be expected to starve himself and his family till his grievances were redressed so far as his termination from Ladnu School was concerned. Mere pendency of appeal or thereafter further challenge to order of termination in writ petition did not and in fact could not create an embargo on his right to earn a respectful livelihood elsewhere he could not be expected to starve himself and his family till his grievances were redressed so far as his termination from Ladnu School was concerned. This, therefore, also did not render the petitioner dis-entitled from seeking the relief from the respondents to adjudge his suitability for appointment in the school which had been taken over by the Government. Although at the same time it could be the factor for denying him the actual arrears/salary for the intervening period. But then, the additional factor that the late husband of the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation and now when the order of his screening was passed at belated stage, then he having attained the age of superannuation on 15th August, 1977 could not have been reinstated in service. Thus the only question that now survives for consideration in the present petition is as to what relief can be granted to the petitioner in the facts of this case in the present scenario. Apart from the fact that this Court in its order dated 4-9-2006 has already taken a view, in my considered opinion, too, the petitioner cannot be deprived of benefits of the judgment pursuant to which her late husband was screened and adjudged suitable for appointment as headmaster. Even if arrears of salary are not directed to be paid on the principle of no work no pay and because he was gainfully employed elsewhere he should certainly be held entitled to all arrears of retiral/terminal dues treating him to have continued in service till he attained the age of superannuation. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is allowed. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the late husband of the petitioner as having continued in their service from the date of his termination till he attained the age of superannuation on the post of headmaster and make payment of all his retiral benefits and arrears of his pension as admissible from time to time till he was alive and thereafter arrears of the family pension to the petitioner with the interest at the rate of 6.5% within three months from the date copy of this judgment is served upon them. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******