Surinder Kaur v. Union Of India & ORS

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 15707 of 2014(O&M) Date of Decision: September 29 , 2015.

Surinder Kaur ...... PETITIONER (s)

Versus

Union of India and others ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:

Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ***** LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside advertisement dated 29.04.2014 (Annexure P4) whereby the post of Female Attendant is proposed to be filled up.

Petitioner was appointed as Female Attendant on 27.12.2004 on contractual basis initially for a period of one year. Thereafter, she continued to work on the said post, her contract of service being renewed periodically. It is submitted that petitioner has rendered dedicated service. There is no complaint

[2] of any kind against her qua her work or conduct. Present petition was filed apprehending termination of her service pursuant to issuance of impugned advertisement dated 29.04.2014.

This Court vide order dated 08.08.2014 directed the respondents to maintain status quo regarding services of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition be allowed in terms of judgment dated 30.06.2015 passed in CWP No.20113 of 2013 (Dr. Sukhpreet Singh v. Union of India and others), petitioner being similarly situated. There is no complaint regarding her work and conduct. Existence of work is not in dispute. Terms and conditions of her agreement are similar to that of the petitioner in Dr. Sukhpreet Singh and other connected cases wherein it has been held that the petitioners therein, who were also appointed on contractual basis, were entitled to continue in service strictly as per terms and conditions of the agreement of service duly entered into and agreed upon between the parties. Present petitioner is identically situated as the petitioner in the abovesaid writ petition.

Learned counsel for respondents is unable to deny the abovesaid factual position. He further submits that person appointed on the said post as of now is only a temporary stop-gap arrangement. Therefore, there is no necessity for impleading the said respondent.

It is thus clear that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service in terms of the decision in Dr. Sukhpreet Singh's case (supra) on the post in question.

Keeping in view the factual matrix as noticed above, present

[3] petition is disposed of in terms of decision dated 30.06.2015 in CWP No.20113 of 2013 (Dr. Sukhpreet Singh v. Union of India and others). ( LISA GILL ) September 29 , 2015.

JUDGE 'om'