SIMI DUTTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking direction for quashing order No. GCET/755 dated: 25 -09 -1999 Annexure -A to the writ petition, whereby she has declined maternity leave as per Leave Rules in vague. At the same time she had prayer for a direction for the grant of maternity leave due to her. Facts in this case are by and large admitted. Petitioner was selected and appointed as Lecturer (adhoc) in discipline of Computer Engineering vide order No. GCET -95/2005 -10 dated: 31 -03 -1995. This was issued by the Co -ordinator and was confirmed by a Committee constituted by the State Government. It resulted in issuance of Govt. order No. 1563 -HE of 1995 dated: 19 -11 -1995. It is not in dispute that petitioner has continued in this post from time to time and is presently continuing in terms of orders in SWP No. 2209/98. Petitioner applied for grant of maternity leave. Needful was done by the Government vide order No. Edu -ColI -WP/l 1555 -995 dated: 30 -07 -1999. However, respondent No. 2 vide letter No. GCET/99/1753 dated: 25 -09 -1999 rejected her claim, as according to her under rules she is not entitled to maternity leave.

(2.) THIS has resulted in filing of this writ petition. Petitioner earlier filed SWP No. 2209/98. One of relief claimed in it was for the grant of maternity leave. Since her claim has been rejected in this behalf hence this writ petition. Petitioner alleges that rejection of her claim is illegal and ultra -vires besides being fraught with extraneous considerations and actuated by oblique motives, therefore, it cannot be sustained .She further alleges that once leave had been granted by the Government it would not have been cancelled by the Principal who is a subordinate. In this background she has prayed for grant of relief referred to hereinabove.

(3.) RESPONDENT when put to notice have filed their objections. According to them petitioner was engaged on consolidated pay of Rs. 6000/ - per month from time to time to carry on teaching needs in the College till vacancy was filled in accordance with rules by the Public Service Commission. Petitioner alongwith number of other persons were engaged to see that the academic arrangements are not hit because of want of teachers. According to them engagement of person like petitioner amongst others is based on principle of "No work no pay". Reliance in this behalf is placed on documents marked Annexures -A and B attached with their objections. Annexure -A is a communication from the Government dated: 23 -03 -1998 which shows that no leave is admissible in case of Lecturers engaged on academic arrangements. This was on the subject, "leave concession to Lecturers engaged on temporary academic arrangements." Annexure -B is a pro forma of affidavit. According to respondents petitioner has earlier approached the court in SWP No. 2209/98 which stands finally disposed of. Same was dismissed, but at the same time it was clarified that till regular selection is made and duly selected candidate as a consequence thereof does not join against the post in question services of the petitioner will not be dispensed with. At the same time it has also been observed in this judgment that petitioner will also be entitled to her admissible salary and other benefits if any to which she is entitled under the service rules including maternity leave. Respondents further say that petitioner was allowed to be away for maternity purposes but she is not entitled to any remuneration for such period as is allowed to the Lecturers who are substantially appointed. Keeping in view the nature of her appointment Article 157 -A of C.S.R. is also inapplicable in case of petitioner. Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner on this provision of law. According to respondents leave was neither sanctioned nor rejected. However petitioner was allowed to be away without renumeration as per necessity. Thus respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.