SUMAN LATA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance to the 860 posts of Hindi Teachers advertised by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, the petitioner, who belongs to SC-A Category applied for the said post on 14.11.1999. The result was declared and the petitioner was selected on 16.10.2000. On 1.12.2000, the petitioner was offered the appointment letter and she joined as Hindi Teacher on 13.12.2000. It was to her utter surprise when on 8.10.2001, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and her services were terminated vide order dated 8.10.2001 (Annexure P-1) and she was relieved on 23.10.2001. The said order of termination was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court and the same was quashed on 2.4.2002 on the ground that the order of termination was passed without observing the principle of natural justice and the respondents were directed to pass an appropriate speaking order afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was called for personal hearing. On 6.6.2002, she filed written representation alleging therein that no show-cause notice was issued to her nor any reason has been recorded on the basis of which action was taken against her. The Director Secondary Education, Haryana, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 29.6.2002 (Annexure P-4) declared that termination order dated 8.10.2001 (Annexure P-1) was in order. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and on 30.1.2003, the said petition was allowed vide Annexure P-5. The State of Haryana preferred the SLP before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 29.4.2005, copy of which is Annexure P-6.

(2.) Despite of the petitioner having waited for a long time that the order of the High Court which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court might be implemented but the same was not implemented, which led to the filing of the contempt petition. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated vide letter dated 3.8.2005 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner, however, through this writ petition claimed that the due to the illegal action on the part of the respondents, she has been deprived of the salary from 24.10.2001 to 3.8.2005 to which she was otherwise entitled.

(3.) In the written-statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been categorically admitted that at the time of reappointment of the petitioner in service, it was incorporated in her appointment letter that she would be entitled continuity of service for purposes of seniority and increments from the date of termination i.e. 8.10.2001 to the date of rejoining i.e. 3.8.2005 but she would not be entitled to any salary on the principle of 'no work no pay'. It was, however, denied that due to the action of the respondent, she remained out of service. The petitioner, is however, not entitled to any salary from 8.10.2001 to the date of rejoining, as she remained out of service being lower in merit and stood in waiting list at Sr. No. 5 in SC-A category. The respondents thus prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.