JASPAL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition will dispose of CWP Nos. 8857, 9785 and 14064 of 1995; the facts of this case are being taken from CWP No. 8857 of 1995.

(2.) The petitioner, Jaspal Kaur was appointed as a Clerk for 89 days against a vacant post on 23rd January, 1990 vide order Annexure P.1 to the petition. She joined service on 1st February, 1990. The petitioner's services were extended from time to time by respondent No. 2 vide Annexures P.3 to P.19; the last extension being granted on 20th May, 1994 up to the end of July 1994 vide Annexure P.19 to the petitioner. The Punjab Government issued instructions Annexure P.25 for the regularisation of the services of ad hoc/temporary Class-III and IV employees working under the Punjab Government and it was stipulated therein that those employees who had put in a minimum of two years of service as on 27th March, 1992 and were in service on that day would be entitled to have their services regularised. Another set of instructions were issued on 18th January, 1995 (Annexure P.26 to the petition) providing that ad hoc/temporary class-III and IV employees who had completed a minimum period of 240 days of services on 31.12.1994 and were in service on that day were also entitled to regularisation provided that the break in service between one appointment and the next did not exceed 30 days and that they fulfilled various other conditions laid down in the annexure. It is the case of the petitioner that she was entitled to have her services regularised under the provisions of Annexures P.25 and P.26. The petitioner accordingly represented to the respondents projecting her claim that her services should be regularised but she remained unsuccessful and it is the case of the petitioner that attempts were, in fact, made to dispense with her services. Aggrieved thereby she has filed the present petition.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued in this case on 16th June, 1995 for 30th August, 1995 and the respondents were restrained from terminating the petitioner's services. The case was thereafter adjourned time and again and was ultimately admitted on 31st May, 1996 and it was directed that the stay would continue till further order. It is accordingly the admitted position that the petitioner continues to remain in service.