LAWS(DLH)-2004-10-6

SUDERSHANA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On October 07, 2004
SUDERSHANA DEVI Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for quashing of the office order dated 5.11.2002 passed by the respondents. The husband of the petitioner was employed with the respondents and he died on 7.7.1987. The petitioner was appointed as an Aya by the respondents under order dated 29.8.1987 in a pay scale of Rs. 400-10-550. It is, therefore, indicated from the said order that the petitioner was appointed with a regular pay scale. She was also given an accommodation by the respondents in which she is living with her two daughters, who are now of marriageable age. Some time in the month of November, 2002, a letter was received by the petitioner issued by the respondents, which is dated 5.11.2002, which was issued by the Deputy Commandant from the office of the Commandant, 25 BN BSF, Chhawla Camp, New Delhi removing the petitioner from service.

(2.) It is clear and apparent from the aforesaid action of the respondents that the respondents have removed the petitioner after she has rendered 15 years of service. There is no allegation on behalf of the respondents that she is in any manner found to be unsuitable for the job or that she has in manner misconducted herself in her work. The only stand that is now being taken by the respondents is that the respondents have given an appointment to the son of the petitioner and, therefore, she is being dismissed from service.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length. Admittedly, the services of the petitioner are not being removed by the respondents on the ground of any misconduct or unsuitability. She has rendered a long 15 years of service to the respondents. She has two marriageable daughters, who are being looked after from the income that she is earning from the respondents. By virtue of her appointment she is also living in the accommodation provided by the respondents. The respondents also admit that the post in which the petitioner is employed is available and they are accommodating other persons against the same.