LexBASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD AND ANR. versus SMT. SUGNA DEVI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD AND ANR. A v. SMT. SUGNA DEVI AND ORS. DECEMBER 12, 2003 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] B Service Law : U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 : Basic Education-Services of teacher-Termination of-Without serv- C ing termination order-Validity of-Held : The services of a validly appointed teacher could not be terminated without serving the termination order-Termination set aside. Limitation Act, 1963 : Section 22-Continuing breach and torts-Cause of action-Salary recurring every mm1th-Held : Cause of action was continuing"""'."-Hence, question of limitation did not arise. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the E then President of the District Board. Respondent No. 1 was on long leave, consequent to her prolonged illness, and after she rejoined, her services were terminated without any termination order. The repre- sentations made by respondent No. 1 were of no avail. In the meanwhile Basic Education was taken over by the Basic Shiksha Parishad from F Zila Parishad vide U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Respondent No. 1 filed a claim before the State Public Services Tribunal, which was rejected on the grounds that the claim was barred by limitation and that respondent No. 1 could not prove that she was validly appointed by the President District Board. G The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 holding that she was working as a teacher, that as the salary was recurring every month the cause of action was continuing and, therefore, the claim wan not barred by limitation. Hence the appeal. H 759 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUJ>P. 6 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the ·court ·HELD : I. The competent authority duly appointed respondent No. 1 as an assistant teacher and she was prevented from joining, as a ·teacher after leave. Once no order of •termination or ·dismissal is B produced, the services of-respondent No. l has to be treated as stood transforred ·to the Basic Education Board by operation of law. In that event, she has to be treated as continuing in service and salary was accruing every month that accorded her a continuing cause of action. Therefore, the question of limitation also will •not arise iin this case. c (762-G-H) 1CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTI0N : •Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.97 of the Allahabad High D Cuort in W.P. No. 8585 of I 986. ·subodh Markandeya, 'Mrs. •Chitra Markandeya and Ms. -Feroza Bano fortthe Appellants. Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli and R.N. ·Pandey for the Respond- ·The IJudgment•ofthe C0urt 1was.delivered by lflWJE'.NDRJ\ !BABU, rr. : Whether the Respondent No. I - Smt. Sugna-Devi-could be.considered asa teacher.employed by the Petitioner F No I - Basic Shiksha. Parishad, Allahabad (UP).js the ·short question for consideration in this matter. Respondent No. !•maintained the,case that she was appointed as an Assistant 'Teacher in •Kanya Pathshala,,·Mallawan in district Gonda on 'G 22/03/1966 by. the then: President of, District· Board Gonda .. Subsequently she was transferred to Paraspur. Later she was transferred back to 'Mallawan. tConsequent to her prolonged illness •she·took .leaveibetween 'July 1970 and 14/05/1971 and thereafter between July ·1971 ·and 29/12/1971. 'When she returned on J0/12/1971 'the Headmistress told•her 'H that,she·was'terminated from services. But·she was not served·with ·any BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD v. SUGNA DEVI [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 761 termination orders. She was told by the Headmistress to approach the Zita A Parishad to seek for a transfer. Accordingly she placed representation before the Chairman, Zila Parishad for transferring her to another school. Several follow up reminders for this representation was sent. By the time vide UP Act No. 34/1927 the Basic Education was taken over by the Basic Shiksha Parishad from Zila Parishad. Thereafter Respondent No. l B approached District Basic Education Officer, Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad and even the Minister and made several representations. Thereafter, she filed a Claim Petition before the UP Public Services Tribunal. Basic Shiksha Parishad maintained the stand that she was never been their employee and since she could not produce any documents that could authenticate the factum of her service the case has to be rejected as a concocted one. Learned Tribunal found that since she could not prove that the President of Di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.