High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/9741/2019disposed off

Dr. Smt. Chhaya Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-11-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 9741 of 2019 • Dr. Smt. Chhaya Tiwari W/o Shri Pramod Tiwari Aged About 65 Years Occupation- Retired Principal, Resident Of MIG-17, Nehru Nagar Bilaspur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The District Education Officer Bilaspur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

4. The Principal Government Higher Secondary School Lingiyadih Bilaspur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 27/11/2019

1. The only grievance of the petitioner is that she was retired as a principal on 31.06.2016, since, no further principal was available at that time in the school, where from she retired, therefore, she was reappointed on 01.07.2016 till 31.03.2017. However, during the course of such contractual appointment, the period was reduced from March to January which certifies that the petitioner has rendered her service for 5 months and 21 days as a principal.

2. It is contended that though the petitioner has rendered her service for 5 months

and 21 days, no payment has been made and despite several representations being made, the same is not looked into it and the respondents have turned deaf ear.

3. Perused the documents. The document prima facie shows that the petitioner was re-appointed as principal and had worked from July 2016 to January 2017 as per Annexure-P2, which is signed by the Principal of the respective school. The documents further shows that several correspondences were made, but it appears that till date the payment has not been released. Since, there is no dispute the petitioner after retirement had discharged the job as she was reappointed by the order of the government, therefore, in all reasonability the services are rendered by the petitioner for which payment is required to be paid. Consequently, the respondents are directed to release the payment of the petitioner from July 2016 to January 2017 as per Annexure-P-2, within a further period of 60 days, from the date of receipt of this order.

4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu