Suman Lata v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.6312 of 2020 DATE OF DECISION : 13.07.2022 Suman Lata

...Petitioner

versus State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Present :

Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, For the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. AG, Haryana.

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Computer Operator in the respondent-department till regular appointment is made.

2.

Petitioner was appointed as Computer Operator in Horticulture Training Institute on contract basis in the year 2008. After completion of her contract, she was discharged from her services. She was again appointed on the same very post on 28.08.2010. Since then she is serving in the department. Her name was though recommended for regularization of her services on 06.01.2015, but she was not regularized. She was later relieved from the aforesaid post on 31.05.2019. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.16540 of 2019 which was disposed of as infructuous since petitioner was taken back in service.

SHALINI BHATIA 2022.07.14 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CWP No.6312 of 2020 -2Term of the petitioner was to expire on 31.03.2020 and she had apprehension that her services may be dispensed with. Hence, the instant petition was preferred.

3.

On advance service of copy of the petition, learned State counsel appears and opposes issuance of notice of motion. 4.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file.

5.

It appears that relief sought by the petitioner has been rendered stale and infructuous as the petition was filed sometime on or around 04.03.2020. Around the time when Covid struck and thereafter for a long interregnum there was complete lockdown. The petitioner at the relevant time had apprehension that being a contractual employee her services may be dispensed with, to accommodate another contractual employee in her place and had therefore, approached this Court seeking interim protection.

6.

The matter has been pending before this Court ever since without being taken up for hearing. When on a Court query as to what is the status of the petitioner currently, learned counsel is unable to respond and states that the petitioner is not in touch with him as of now. 7.

Be that as it may, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.

8.

Dismissed.

JULY 13, 2022 (ARUN MONGA) Shalini JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2022.07.14 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.