JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Mani Tripathi Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V. P. Nag, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. By instituting the instant Special Appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the appellant-petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.04.2023, passed by an Hon’ble Single Judge dismissing the Writ-A No. 2924 of 2023, which was filed by the appellant-petitioner for quashing of the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar, rejecting her representation dated 29.09.2022.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Mukhya Sevika on 31.05.1995 and she joined her duties on 25.04.1996.

4. On 15.06.2005, the petitioner was transferred to Sultanpur. The petitioner challenged this transfer order by filing Writ Petition No. 4664 (S/S) of 2005 and on 25.07.2005 an interim order was passed in the aforesaid writ petition that the petitioner shall not be relieved in pursuance of the transfer order. The writ petition was finally disposed of by means of a judgment and order dated 30.09.2005, directing that if the petitioner makes any representation within a period of ten days for change of the place of posting in accordance with the Government Order dated 13.07.2000, she will be accommodated in any of the blocks in District Lucknow, except the home block, or in any block in any adjoining district and till then no coercive measure shall be taken against her. In furtherance of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.09.2005, the petitioner was given posting in District Lucknow.

5. The petitioner filed another writ petition, bearing Writ Petition No. 4848 (S/S) of 2014, raising her grievance of non-payment of some dues of salary, medical leave and benefit of 6th Pay Commission recommendations, which was disposed off by means of a judgment and order dated 04.09.2014 directing that the Director, Child Development and Nutrition, Lucknow should take a decision on the petitioner’s representation.

6. On 27.3.2015, the Director passed an order in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 04.09.2014, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4849 (S/S) of 2014, stating that as per the report submitted by the District Program Officer, Lucknow, medical leave for the period 03.08.2007 to 20.08.2007 (18 days), 03.07.2008 to 17.07.2008 (15 days), 04.06.2009 and 26.06.2009 to 27.06.2009 (3 days), 01.02.2011 to 28.02.2011 (28 days) and 01.07.2013 to 31.08.2013 had already been sanctioned and no leave application was available for two days’ absence in September, 2012 and three days’ absence in May, 2013. It was further stated in the order that the benefit of the 6th Pay Commission’s recommendations had already been given to the petitioner.

7. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ-A No.6123 of 2022 claiming salary for the period 02.03.2001 to 31.10.2001, salary and other allowances for the period 16.05.1998 to 01.03.2001, assured carrier progression for the year 2003 and some other dues. However, after advancing submissions at some length in support of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer for issuance of a direction to the Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 10.08.2022. The Hon’ble Single Judge disposed off the writ petition without entering into the merits of the case by directing the Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 10.08.2022 with a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law.

8. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar decided the petitioner’s representation by a detailed and reasoned order dated 13.01.2023.

9. Regarding the petitioner’s claim for payment of salary for the period 20.06.2005 to 26.10.2006, it ha