Balwinder Kaur v. Secretary Govt. Education, Punjab And ORS
!"!#!
$!!! !#!
#% &&
''( "!)# *!
+ !
$
, -.
# ! #!
- !". !#!
!#
+
!- /")- ' + +! !$,!++
! "# $$$$$ +! !$,!++. '0 1 % &
' (
)*( + ,-
* ** '( ./..0
1 ,%2# 3 *& # *, ,4# *( #
%6
.%/ * 7
%.0%20 2
3 * ! %89:0
%89:;2# (
#
# '
'*
<...=,(**<...=, ( * '
1 &
'
%.9.%/)*(
+ ,(
* * "
*
* > ?
;
.%.%.%. @ ( '
'
' (
',
' A
'
(
.%.8.%:&# * '
* (
( '
.%.%.%.
6%./.%:
#
1
# **'**
3(* *
*
( ( '*
%:..=,
6
*
, '
(
* "
.%./.%% #
A
*
./.:.%%# 7
*, '
"
./.:.%%
.%.%.%.@
*
9
(
* (
*
, , @* *
'(
* ' * * )*( + ,(
* "
?
;
'(
' 3( * A
(
' (
# & #
(
*
*#
<
' *
*
& # * 1
* *#*
3(
@
! *
"#
, ,@* #
** +' '
' 23& 3 ' 2%
4%56 '
'
7 8'
('
8 - *
' (
* *
./.:.%% ( * * '
*
* (
' **
%6%
B ! *
, ,@* A 3(* *
** '
* * (
**#
: 4* 4#
*(
*
9.
( *
(
' -%
*
! *
(
**# !CB3* # # -% "# *7 *
* #* (
* /
(
@
4#
*
* &
*
#
*
7
<,D
%89:
* 1
'
# *
& # * (
#* ( "
The services of the claimant with the respondent till 3108 2017 has not been denied, It has been contended that "intimation was given to the applicant regarding her termination and moreover her last wages were also paid to her on 27102017". It is further contender that in this case no Civil Service Rules are applicable for the applicant, hence no chargesheet, enquiry or payment of compensation is required as per law.. MW1 during. his cross examination has deposed that "Balvinder Kaur worked with the respondents for six year. It is correct thai applicant was getting salary Rs. /700/p.m. It is correct that I have red any notice before passing the order dt. 21082017, the copy of same is Ex.
WY volunteered I have not to issue any notice to the applicant just have passed the order as per instructions received by the DGSC Punjab Chandigarh, DFO Elementary Education Patiala and ВБРО (Block Education Primary Öfficer) Patiala. I is correct that services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 2017. No seniority list of Mid day meal cook was maintained on district level by the DEO. It is correct that no Punjab Civil Service Rules are applicable to the petitioner." Admittedly, the claimant worked for 240 days continuously with the respondent in the last calendar year preceding, the date of Claimed termination i.e. 01.09.2017.
The argument on the basis of the contention in the written statement to the extent that Civil Service Rules are not applicable and that the claimant was removed from service as per instructions of the Head Office is not sustainable. The rights of the claimant/workman' under the I.D. Act. 1947 are independent and germinate in favour of the claimant on completion of continuous 240 days during the preceding calendar year and violation thereof.
It has been pleaded and argued on behalf of the claimant that juniors have been retained in service and therefore, there is violation on behalf of the respondents, however, the argument is not sustainable since apart from bald assertions in the ạ claim no evidence h s been led in corroboration of the claim. Whereas respondents have contended that "That the applicant Balwinder Kaur was the junior most amongst the Mid Day Meal Cook cum Helpers working in Government Middle School Janherian, Distt. Patiala. That the other Mid Day
Meal Cooks cum Helpers are working in GMS Janherian namely 1. Smt. Raj Kaur appointed on 15082008, 2. Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur appointed on 15082008 whereas the applicant was appointed on 01082011. Fhat 1 it is crystal clear that Balwinder Kaur W/o. Sh.
Ram Dass was the junior most amongst the other Mid Day Meal Cook cum Helpers working in the school, It is also wrong that respondents have engaged new workers in place of applicant after terminating her services" Further during cross examination claimant has admitted that "It is correct that I was appointed in the school after appointment Of Raj Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur and I am junior to both" The above is sufficient to conclude that claimant/workman completed service of 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination and' his services were terminated without any notice, chargesheet, enquiry or payment of compensation, Thus, services of the claimant/workman were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947. Accordingly, issue No.
1 is answered in favour of the claimant/workman and against the respondents."
4# ( * * ' *
7
<,D
%89:( *
<...=, (** <...=, ( * '
1 8 4
*
' '
* (
*
'(
**# ('
** # # (
* ( * * # *
( '
** '
( '
* ' A
* %. ! "#
'
# *
4#
(
*
( # # 4#
* ( #
** '#
, ' %% &
*
%:..=,
* '
# (
* !
( *
<....=,
( (
( '
*
6<....=,0 *
23
*
<....=, ( ( * '
1 '
#
* % &
' *
6<....9,0 *
2 E <....=, 0
2 F 9.....=, 0 D * 2 * ( ** * #
'
%.9.%/(
#
%<./.9 * ' ( - :5 ;
&< < 6=>56355 % 56 3
2 3'(..9 0 63 %31
: ;
>
3?7@6
5.2 5>& 2633
: 2> 3 &
''''('
@ * #
*
6<....=,0 *
2 <....=,0
2
* '
1 (
* ( *
# *
*
#
* 8'
-
#
(
A+! !$,!++B %<.<.9 # rashmi - '=
=
-
#*G =