AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
By the order dated 22.10.2019 of the Inspector of Schools, Karbi Anglong District Circle, the petitioner was appointed as a language teacher in the
Indira Memorial Hindi M E School. The order refers to a letter No. KAAC/Ele.Edn/Drop Out A.T/SIU/2017-18/14 dated 21.10.2019 which relates to
the petitioner being regularized as a dropped teacher. The petitioner was apparently regularised as a dropped teacher pursuant to the order dated
18.05.2018 in WP(C) No. 3076/2018.
It is specifically taken note of that in the said order it was not provided that the petitioner would be entitled to his past services for the purpose of
pensionary benefits. The petitioner now refers to another judgment of this court dated 28.04.2015 in WP(C) No. 3662/2009 wherein Clause vi of
Paragraph 18, it had been provided that all such appointments of dropped teachers would be prospective but will carry the benefit of past services for
the purpose of computing the pensionary benefits. By referring to the said judgment dated 28.04.2015 in WP(C) No. 3662/2009 the petitioner institutes
this writ petition for a direction that for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the past services of the petitioner be also included.
If we entertain this writ petition and grant the relief sought for by the petitioner, two implications would follow. One, it would amount to a
modification of the earlier order dated 18.05.2018 in WP(C) No. 3076/2018 to also include the benefit of past service of the petitioner for pensionary
benefits. The second implication would be that in a situation where the stage of receiving pensionary benefits by the petitioner is yet to be arrived, the
petitioner seeks for a writ in the nature of mandamus to also include the past services for the pensionary benefits, meaning thereby that a writ is
sought for in respect of a future event that may take place inasmuch as the petitioner is still in service.
From such point of view, it would amount to entertaining a writ petition against an apprehended future violation of a legal right. Prima facie both the
situations are not included in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner seeks an adjournment to examine the matter.
As prayed for, list after a month.