← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/17612/2017dismissed

Mukesh Kumari v. State Of Haryana And ANR

2023-11-20Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

2023:PHHC:147156

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-17612-2017 O&M) Decided on : 20.11.2023 Smt. MUKESH KUMARI . . .Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Kamal Kumar Yogi, Advocate Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner. .

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming that the services of the petitioner have been terminated orally, which action on the part of the respondents is totally arbitrary and illegal as the services of the petitioner have been terminated without serving any charge-sheet or holding any enquiry.

2.

The respondents have filed the reply in which they have stated that the petitioner was engaged as a motivator being social worker in village Bhaini Bharo in Meham Block w.e.f. 10.06.2007 at the monthly remuneration of Rs. 2500/-. The petitioner worked for a period upto 01.07.2008 and thereafter, she left the campaign and never joined back the same hence, question of terminating the services of the petitioner does not arise.

3.

There is no replication to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. RIYA 2023.11.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17612-2017 (O&M) -22023:PHHC:147156 5.

Keeping in view the fact that as per the respondents, the petitioner had left the campaign and that too as far back as 01.07.2008, and the present petition was only filed in the year 2017, no ground is made out to hold that the services of the petitioner were terminated as being claimed in the writ petition. Rather, the assertion of the respondents that the petitioner had left the campaign w.e.f 01.07.2008 has not been controverted by filing any replication. That being the factual aspect, once the petitioner had left the campaign on her own and was not working for the ten years i.e. from 01.07.2008 and the present petition has been filed in the year 2017, no ground is made out to allow the prayer made in the present petition, accordingly, present petition stands dismissed. 6.

Dismissed.

7.

Civil Miscellaneous application pending, if any, shall also disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 20.11.2023 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No RIYA 2023.11.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document