KALAWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the very outset we may mention that both the learned counsel agreed that while deciding the Letters Patent Appeal the Court may dispose of the writ petition as well. Therefore, we have heard arguments on the letters patent appeal as well as the writ petition.

(2.) THE fact which are necessary for deciding the LPA and the Writ Petition are that the petitioner-appellant, Kalawati Devi, who is a widow, was engaged in the service of Panchayat Samiti, Nangal Chaudhary as a Craft Teacher for a period of six months commencing from 24. 6. 1964. The term of her appointment was extended from time to time till 12. 3. 1983 when her services were regularised. After about 6 months of her attaining the age of 55 years, the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul issued Order dated 9,12. 1987 Annexure P. 1 retiring the petitioner from service on the ground that the Regional Development and panchayat Office, Ateli Nangal has made wrong entries in her service book and her annual confidential reports were incomplete and also on the ground that her case was sent late for sanction.

(3.) WE shall first take up the LPA No. 1581 of 1989 which has been filed against the Order dated 19. 7. 1989 passed by the learned Single Judge. Shri M. M. Kumar argued that the Order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous in law because the same has been passed without due consideration of the merits of the case of the writ petitioner-appellant. He submitted that but for the ex-parte stay order which was passed by the Division Bench on 7. 8. 1989 the petitioner-appellant would have suffered irreparable injury and no amount of money could have compensated the injury suffered by her. Learned counsel relied on the observations made by a learned Single Judge in The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation v. Radhe Sham and Anr. , 1983 (2) SLR 65. The learned Deputy Advocate General argued that the appeal of the petitioner is misconceived and should not have been entertained because the learned Single Judge vacated the interim Order after duly considering the issue of irreparable injury.