Radha Sharma v. UOI & Ors

VEENA BIRBAL, J ANIL KUMAR, J JANUARY 11th , 2011

ssb

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) 4232/2008 % Date of Decision: 11.01.2011 Ms. Radha Sharma …. Petitioner Through Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. Versus Lt. Governor & Ors. …. Respondent Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Adv. for Mr. Aditya Madan, Adv CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes Veena Birbal, J. (oral) * By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 9th April, 2008 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "The Tribunal") in OA No.1843/2007 whereby the request of the petitioner for the grant extension to continue in service w.e.f 1st April, 2006 to 30th September, 2008, after retirement, on the basis of her being a State Awardee with all consequential benefits including back wages and interest thereon, has been rejected. 2. The petitioner had joined as a Junior Home Science Teacher with respondent on 11th August, 1967. On 4th February, 1974, she was promoted as a Senior domestic Science Teacher. In the year 1989, petitioner was awarded State award by the Delhi Administration for her meritorious/outstanding service by the Lt. Governor of Delhi. Prior to her retirement, petitioner made various representations to the respondents seeking extension in service for two years with all relevant documents which entitled her for extension. On 30th September, 2006, petitioner stood retired from the services as a Senior Domestic Science Teacher. The representations of petitioner for extension of service were rejected on 06.11.2006. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an OA No. 2373/2006 before the Tribunal praying for a direction to the respondents to declare that the petitioner was entitled for extension of service for two years w.e.f 1.10.2006 to 30.9.2008 on the basis of her being a State Awardee. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 19.04.2007 with a direction to the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioner for extension in service beyond 60 years upto 62 years on account of being a State Awardee in the light of the similar treatment meted out of one Smt. Lakhbir Kaur by a reasoned and speaking order to be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said order. On the direction of the Tribunal, respondents re-examined the case of the petitioner and vide order dated 25th June, 2007 rejected the claim of petitioner for extension in service on the ground that as per FR-56 no government servant is entitled for extension of service beyond the age of 60 years. It was further stated in the said order that Smt. Lakhbir Kaur was granted extension inadvertently due to oversight of FR-56(d) amended vide DOPT notification dated 13.05.1998. Thereafter, petitioner came to know that even after amendment in FR-56, respondents had granted extension to few other teachers. The details of which are given in the petition. Feeling aggrieved with the order of respondent dated 25.06.2007, petitioner filed review application before the Tribunal in OA 2373/2006. The said review application was rejected vide order dated 06.09.2007. Feeling aggrieved with the same, petitioner filed a WP(C) No. 7261/2007. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 1st October, 2007 and liberty was given to the petitioner to file fresh OA challenging the order dated 25th June, 2007. Accordingly, petitioner filed fresh OA i.e O.A. No.1813/2007 challenging the order of respondents dated 25th June, 2007 on the ground that similarly situated State Awardees of the year 1989 had been granted two years extension in service whereas petitioner had not been granted, as such, discrimination had been caused to her. Petitioner had also alleged that Rule 110(3) of the Delhi School Education Rules provides extension in service of two yea