R GEETHA RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was engaged on July 10, 1990 as a counsellor, Voluntary Action Bureau (hereafter VAB) by the State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Andaman and Nicobar Islands (hereafter the State Board), respondent no.2. Such engagement was in respect of a project on contract and for a fixed duration. 2 After expiry of the initial duration, the appellant was engaged on year to year basis. At the material time, her engagement was to continue till March 31, 2002. Prior to expiry of the duration of her engagement, her service was terminated. She had the occasion to approach the writ Court by filing W.P. No.091 of 2002. By an order dated February 4, 2003, the writ petition was disposed of by Hon 'ble P.C. Ghose, J. with a direction upon the respondents "to take necessary steps in this matter to allow the petitioner to continue as she was in service on a contract basis with immediate effect ". It was further directed that the petitioner 's claim for regularization "is also to be taken into account by the said respondents through the Administration with their respective authorities ", preferably within eight weeks from the date of communication of such order.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that in compliance with the said order, the appellant was reinstated in service. However, no final decision on her claim for regularization was taken. This resulted in a contempt application (CPAN 002 of 2004) being filed by her. The contempt application was considered by Hon 'ble G.C. Gupta, J. on March 16, 2004. His Lordship upon consideration of the rival submissions disposed of the contempt application by an order of even date expressing that "the authorities should be more vigilant in carrying out the order dated 4th February, 2003 according to its letter and spirit " but at the same time it was observed "that there has been no deliberate violation of the order ".

(3.) HAVING failed to obtain favourable orders in respect of regularization of her service by initiating contempt proceedings, the appellant thereafter invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court once again by filing a writ petition dated November 9, 2010, registered as W.P. 1310 of 2010. She sought for the following reliefs:-