Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1033 (JK)

Shamim Akhter v. State of J&K

2017-11-27

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Ravinder Singh, Director School Education, is present in person. 2. Going by the nature of relief sought for, petition is admitted to hearing and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, same is taken up for final disposal. 3. Through the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “Mandamus-commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner as teacher from the date similar situated candidates have been appointed and may further issue writ of– Mandamus-commanding the respondents to grant all the consequential service and monetary benefits to the petitioner along with interest in favour of the petitioner w.e.f the date when similarly situated other persons particularly Jamila Bi has been appointed and paid the benefits.” 4. Petitioner has been knocking the doors of this Court from the year 1998. Petitioner pleads that she was appointed as Teacher on adhoc basis in the year 1990 for a short period. Petitioner fearing that she may be disengaged made some representation to the authority, but she was not allowed to work. She approached this Court by way of SWP No. 2579/2001, which came to be disposed of by this Court on 24.08.2002. This Court by recording para 4 of the reply filed by the respondent-Education Department, directed the respondent-Education Department to pass fresh orders by observing as follows:- “The further stand taken by the respondents at internal page ‘4’ requires to be taken note of. This is being reproduced below:- Whereas as per the record, the petitioner worked in GPS Qassab from 1.4.1990 to 5.5.1998 and thereafter was ousted vide Order No. 74 dated 5.5.1990 by I/C Pay Centre GSC Sonia Simlan which was sought to be quashed in SWP No. 322/90 titled Jamila Bibi and ors Versus State and ors. No drawal of pay w.e.f 1.4.1990 to 5.5.1999 has been made in favour of Shamim Akther as per the verification of GPR. Since Shamim Akhter was ousted vide order No. 74 dated 5.5.1990, therefore, no order of termination under No. Eng/termination/1063-2231 dated May 10, 1991 was ever issued as alleged by the petitioner.” “A perusal of the above, would indicate that contradictory stand has been taken by the respondents, firstly, it is stated that no order of termination was passed, and thereafter reference is being made to Order No. 74 issued on 5.5.1990. Copy of that order has not been placed on the record. Copy of that order has not been placed on the record. As indicted above, the observations made in order dated 13.1.2001 are contradictory, at one stage, it is stated that the petitioner came to be appointed on 1.4.1990, thereafter it is stated that no order of termination was passed. In view of the above, order dated 13.1.2001 is hereby quashed. The respondents would pass a fresh order. This would be done after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner to appear before Chief Education Officer, Poonch on 13.09.2002.” 5. After verifying the records and statement made by Mr. Sunil Malhotra, learned GA, it is clear that no order has been passed after passing of the aforesaid order dated 24.08.2002 till date. In the meanwhile, petitioner-lady has been knocking the doors of the respondent-Education Department by her personal representations, representation through the elected representatives which are annexures ‘K’ and ‘M’ collectively. The representation is from the year 2005 to 2016. None of the above representations made directly or through the medium of elected representatives found favour with the respondent-Education Department and therefore, petitioner-lady has once again approached this Court for redressal of her grievances. 6. Mr. Sunil Malhotra, learned GA appearing for the Education Department, states that there was no engagement order issued in the name of the petitioner as adhoc teacher and, therefore, question of disengagement does not arise. The very claim is disputed on facts. 7. Be that as it may, this contention appears to be a disputed question of fact, because para 4 of the reply filed by the Education Department recorded by this Court in its order dated 24.08.2002 rendered in SWP No. 2579/2001, speaks otherwise. It has been recorded that petitioner-lady did work w.e.f. 01.04.1990 to 05.05.1990 and there was no termination order of her services. In that background, this Court in its earlier order set aside the order dated 13.1.2001 and directed the respondent-Education department to pass fresh orders. 8. Since no decision has been taken by the respondent-Education department so far, Mr. Sunil Malhotra, learned Govt. Advocate was directed to cause appearance of Director School Education in the Court, so as to assist the Court for early decision of the matter. 8. Since no decision has been taken by the respondent-Education department so far, Mr. Sunil Malhotra, learned Govt. Advocate was directed to cause appearance of Director School Education in the Court, so as to assist the Court for early decision of the matter. The Director School Education was kind enough to appear before this Court and he assured that after going through the record, appropriate orders will be passed in compliance to the order dated 24.08.2002 rendered in SWP No. 2579/2001. 9. He will also afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as her counsel who will appear before the Director School Education on 23.12.2017. 10. The Director School Education is directed to call for the record from Chief Education Officer, Poonch and also from Zonal Education Officer, Harni, Mendhar for disposing the claim on its own merits. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim. 11. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, in the above terms.