SANDHYA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order-dated 8.10.2002 granting fresh appointment to the petitioner in the department concerned and refusing the treat the period from 30.1.1985 upto 8.10.2002 for the purpose of pension and post-retiral benefits, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER was initially appointed as a Junior Instructor, subsequently designated as Training Officer in the Department of Employment and Training, Government of MP, vide order-dated 19.12.1981 - Annexure P/3. Appointment of the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years. After successfully completing the training, petitioner was confirmed on the post vide Annexure P/4. However, it seems that after her confirmation petitioner took leave from 24.10.1983 to 3.11.1983 and thereafter remained absent by sending applications and seeking extension of leave. However, when the petitioner did not join duty and continued to remain absent, vide order- dated 30.1.1985 - Annexure P/6, her services were terminated as no longer required. After her termination, petitioner started representing to the department and finally when representation - Annexure R/1 was submitted by the petitioner on 19.11.1999, the order - Annexure P/8 was passed on 8.10.2002, granting fresh appointment to the petitioner on the post of Training Officer and while passing the aforesaid order it was stated that the appointment of the petitioner is afresh and the petitioner shall not get any benefit for the past services rendered by her. PETITIONER accepted this appointment granted on 8.10.2002, joined on the post and started working and after a period of more than seven years, has filed this writ petition claiming regularization of the period in question i.e... the period from 30.1.1985 to 8.10.2002, contending that the aforesaid period be counted as period spent on duty, for the purpose of granting pension and other post retiral benefits.

(3.) IT was emphasized by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, that the petitioner kept quiet from 30.1.1985, never challenged the termination and when the offer made by the petitioner is accepted, challenge is made to part of the acceptance offer that also after a period of seven years, which also is unsustainable. Accordingly Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is estopped from turning around and going back on her promise made vide Annexure R/1.