MEENA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.05.1996 (P -3) by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated by respondent No. 4 -Chairman Bhartia Gramin Mahila Samiti Patiala. The petitioner was appointed as Gram Sewika in the pay scale of Rs. 110 -200 plus usual allowances as admissible to a Government Servant. As per Annexure P -1, the post was purely on temporary basis and was likely to continue for a number of years. Her appointment could be terminated as per condition No. 2 of her appointment letter, which reads as under: - -

(2.) THE petitioner and her colleagues had made a complaint to the Government that respondent No. 4 pays only 75 per cent, of the salary payable to the Gram Sewikas, including the petitioner but obtained her signatures of the payees for the payment of full salary. The Vigilance Bureau of the State of Punjab is holding enquiry into the Short/under payment of the salaries to the Gram Sewikas by the respondent -organisation. The respondents who were nursing a grudge against the petitioner for having made complaint, terminated his services by order dated 30.05.1996 passed by respondent No. 4. However, no notice of charge -sheet was served upon the petitioner and without complying the conditions of her appointment letter i.e. prior notice of one month. Thus, the order is violative of principles of 'First Come Last Go'. The persons junior to the petitioner namely Kanwaljit Kaur Gram Sewika, Tohra (Nabha Centre), Daljit Kaur Gram Sewika posted at Jand Mangoli (Ghanaur Centre) and Sudesh Rani Gram Sewika Kaidupur (Nabha) are continuing in service of the respondent Samiti. The petitioner had put in more than 10 years of service and was not eligible to get service anywhere.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no notice as contemplated in her appointment letter (P -1) was served upon the petitioner before terminating her services. The petitioner has put in more than 10 years of service and without following the procedure, her services have been terminated.