High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/22318/2012dismissed

Parminder Kaur v. State Of Punjab & ORS.

2016-08-09Mr. Justice S.P. Bangarh2 pages

Manoj Kumar 2016.08.10 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.22318 of 2012 #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22318 of 2012 Date of Order: 09.8.2016 Parminder Kaur ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Others ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:

Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent No.5. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) The petitioner, who was born on 03.2.1959, possesses the Diploma in cutting and tailoring from ITI Budhladha. She was appointed as Sewing Teacher under Sakharta Scheme for a period of six months at the honorarium of Rs.600/- per month vide letter dated 04.3.1998 (P.2) issued by the Chairman, Block Literacy Society (Rural) Mansa-respondent No.4. She claims that her period of engagement was extended from time to time and she was transferred and posted to various Sakharta Mission run either by the Deputy Commissioner or Zila Parishad or the Red Cross Society. She states that she has worked for more than 14 years and thus claims regularization of her services.

Upon notice, separate replies have been filed on behalf of the

CWP No.22318 of 2012 #2# Government as well as respondent No.4.

In the replies, it is stated that the Government of India had sponsored a Literacy Scheme called as Bharat Sakharta Mission 2012, and seven districts of Punjab had been selected, where persons above 15 years of age had to be made literate. The Scheme was administered through the Panchayati Raj Institution. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been adjusted in one scheme or the other by the District Administration and, therefore, there is no question of regularization of the service as she was never employed by any state agency. It is further revealed that due to the lack of funds, the project stood suspended on 06.11.2012 and the petitioner was accordingly relieved from duty on 07.11.2012 in terms of the condition of her engagement on contract basis.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the said Scheme itself having been suspended, very graciously admits that nothing more is required to be adjudicated in the present case. In view of the aforesaid, present petition is dismissed as infructuous.

August 09, 2016 (JASWANT SINGH) manoj JUDGE