PRABHA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.10.2015 as also order dated 8.12.2015 passed by the respondents No.1 and 3 respectively. Vide order dated 29.10.2015 a five Members Scrutiny Committee under the Chairmanship of the respondent No.1-Principal Secretary of the Public Works Department (for short "PWD"?) has held the appointment of the petitioner, a daily wager employee, to be illegal and subsequently on 8.12.2015 the final order has been passed.

(2.) In brief the case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed on 13.9.1983 on the post of Hindi/ English Typist as a daily wager in PWD and continued to be in regular and continuous employment of the department from 23.10.1988 till date. The further case of the petitioner is that the State Government, in the year 1990 formulated a scheme for regularization of the employees, employed in its various departments on daily wages, pursuant to which the entitlement for regularization was to be determined by the screening committee and the committee found the petitioner to be eligible for regularization and the petitioner's services were regularized on 1.8.1997 and she was posted as regular employee in the office of PWD Bhopal.

(3.) The further case of the petitioner is that although she was entitled to all the consequential benefits after her regularization, however, her services as regular employee were terminated vide order dated 30.9.1997 without giving any opportunity of hearing to her. The aforesaid order dated 30.9.1997 was challenged by the petitioner before the State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application but after abolition of the Tribunal the said case was transferred to the High Court and was re-numbered as WP No.23743/2003 and this Court vide order dated 15.9.2009 dismissed the said writ petition upholding the validity of the impugned order of termination, as the contention of the State was that although the petitioner was regularized, however, on account of certain complaints made by the other employee senior to the petitioner, her services were terminated after giving her one month's salary as per the terms of the appointment. Being aggrieved of the said order dated 15.9.2009, the petitioner preferred WA No.1238/2009, which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 5.12.2013 directing the respondent No.2/Engineer-in-Chief of the PWD to decide as to whether the termination order dated 30.9.1997 was warranted or not and if found to be not warranted, to consider the entitlement of the petitioner for regularization of her service with all consequential benefits and pursuant to which, the Engineer-in-Chief vide its order dated 28.6.2014 came to a conclusion that the termination order of the petitioner was unwarranted and the petitioner was entitled for regular appointment from 30.9.1997 with all consequential benefits and arrears of salary. When the aforesaid order was sent to the respondent No.1, Principal Secretary of the Department, a five Members Scrutiny Committee under the Chairmanship of the respondent No.1 was constituted, who has given its decision on 29.10.2015 (Annexure P-7), which is under challenge before this Court and thereafter second impugned order dated 8.12.2015 (Annexure P-8) has been passed by the respondent No.3 holding the appointment of the petitioner to be illegal.