JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh 1. By Court: Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is widow of one late Madan Mohan Singh, who was the teacher in I.C.C. Middle School, Moubhander, East Singhbhum, having been appointed on 01st April 1956. The petitioner's husband, during his life time, had pursued a litigation on the question of grant of junior selection grade which went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By the judgment at annexure-1 dated 6th April 1998, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 1915/1998 preferred by the husband of the petitioner against the dismissal of his writ petition for the said relief, allowed the appellant to file a necessary declaration in the prescribed format to his employer and thereafter, the employer was directed to consider the case of the appellant and pass appropriate orders in the matter of grant of junior selection grade to the appellant within a stipulated time. Incidentally, respondents had not granted the selection grade to the petitioner's husband earlier on his resistance to file a declaration in the required format which had led to the said litigation. However, after passing of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and on filing of the said declaration, the respondent school granted the benefit of senior selection grade with effect from 30th April 1998 by letter dated 6th June 1998. The petitioner's husband however, proceeded on leave and respondents chose to terminate his services by order dated 22nd February 1999 while rejecting his application for leave. The said order of termination was challenged by the husband of the petitioner in CWJC No. 2769/1999 (R). Learned Single Judge while allowing the said writ petition by judgment dated 26th March 2001 (Annnexure-3) on the ground of failure to comply with the principles of natural justice, observed that after the order of termination, the said petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 2nd July 1999 and therefore, liberty was given to the respondents to release the retiral benefits taking into consideration the actual date of superannuation of the said petitioner. Learned Single Judge also noticed the statement made on behalf of the respondents that the said petitioner had been granted the benefit of senior selection grade with effect from 30th April 1998 after the matter was remitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned Single Judge also noticed the statement made on behalf of the respondents that the said petitioner had been granted the benefit of senior selection grade with effect from 30th April 1998 after the matter was remitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the writ petition was allowed by directing the respondents to pay the rest of the retiral benefits as some of the benefits had already been released. 3. Incidentally, it now transpires that the husband of the present petitioner had already died on 31st May 2000 as also averred in the writ petition itself. The present petitioner being the widow, has preferred this writ application seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant the benefits of the junior selection grade with effect from 01st April 1984, senior selection grade with effect from 01st April 1987 and the benefits of revised pay scale from 01st January 1986 of her husband as also consequential arrears arising out of the said difference in salary and accrued in the post retirement-cum-death benefits with interest. 4. Respondents have filed two counter affidavits. In the first counter affidavit, respondents have taken a stand that after signing of the declaration form by the said employee on 30th April 1998, his pay scale was fixed by the School Managing Committee. They have also stated that the benefits of the pay revision could not have been given from retrospective effect. Further statements have been made that pursuant to the direction passed by the learned Single Judge earlier, the employee was given the retiral benefits which included payment of gratuity, leave encashment amount and amount from teachers welfare fund. They have also explained the reason why the benefits of the junior selection grade was not extended to the said employee because of his non-signing of the declaration form earlier. 5. In the second counter affidavit filed in the year 2012, respondents have also made a categorical statement that the I.C.C. Middle School, Moubhander, East Singhbhum was established and run by the Managing Committee and the respondent company only used to extend aid to the school from time to time. Apart from it, the school used to raise its own fund through fees, donation, etc. Since the year 2002, the respondent company had stopped giving aid to the school and school has also been closed down long back. Apart from it, the school used to raise its own fund through fees, donation, etc. Since the year 2002, the respondent company had stopped giving aid to the school and school has also been closed down long back. Respondents have therefore submitted that since the school has already been closed long back, company cannot be made liable to pay any amount to the petitioner and no relationship of the employer and employee exist between the employee of the school and the respondent no. 1 company. By referring to the judgment dated 2nd July 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 5918/2003 along with Cont. Case (Civil) No. 250/2004, it has been further submitted that the fact relating to the closure of the school have been noticed in the said judgment and the Court found that there could not have been any occasion for the respondent company to make payment of any amount after closure of the school. In sum and substance, respondents' stand is that now, no further relief is available to the petitioner widow. 6. Counsel for the petitioner in response, has reiterated that respondents were obliged to grant junior selection grade to the employee in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and even after direction of the learned Single Judge, benefits of the junior selection grade have not been given from the due date. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. The chronology of facts have been narrated in some detail and they are not in dispute. Evidently, after passing of the judgment dated 6th April 1998 and upon filing of the declaration in the prescribed form by the husband of the petitioner on 30th April 1998, the pay scale of the employee was fixed granting him senior selection grade with effect from 30th April 1998 vide letter dated 6th June 1998. Such order of grant of senior selection grade remained unchallenged and the service of petitioner's husband was terminated on account of unauthorized leave by the respondents in the meantime on 27th February 1999. Such order of grant of senior selection grade remained unchallenged and the service of petitioner's husband was terminated on account of unauthorized leave by the respondents in the meantime on 27th February 1999. Learned Single Judge of this Court after having noticed the stand of the respondents relating to the grant of senior selection grade and the fact that the employee had reached the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ application, allowed the writ petition on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and chose to issue direction upon the respondents to make payment of the balance post retirement benefits to the said employee. It is not in dispute that after passing of the said judgment, the post retirement benefits of the employee who incidentally died on 31st May 2000 itself, were actually paid by the respondents including gratuity, leave encashment and other amount of teachers welfare fund. The other fact which has been brought to the notice of this Court by the last counter affidavit filed by the respondent company is that the school is no longer in existence which in fact, was earlier run by the Managing Committee and the company in question used to extend aid to the school from time to time. Since 2002, it is stated that company had stopped giving aid to the school and the school had closed long back. 8. In the aforesaid state of facts, at this stage therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner for grant of junior selection grade for the period starting from 01st April 1984 and senior selection grade from 01st April 1987, do not seem to be tenable in law as well as on fact. As noticed herein above, the grant of senior selection grade to the petitioner's husband by the respondents at the relevant point of time in the year 1998, also remained unchallenged and by the order of learned Single Judge passed on 26th March 2001, respondents have also released the retiral benefits of the said employee. Therefore, no grounds are made out to direct the respondent company to grant the relief as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.