UNION OF INDIA Vs. SARLA KOUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal preferred by the Union of India and its officers under clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.05.2001. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding the writ petitioner-respondent entitled to re-instatement. The payment of back wages was restricted to three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition.

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that an advertisement was issued on 09.06.1966 by the Deputy Director Posts and Telegraphs, J&K Circle Srinagar inviting applications for appointment as Clerks in the Post Offices. The writ petitioner- respondent was appointed on 22.05.1967 by the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs Srinagar to a temporary post of Time Scale Clerk (Annexure P5) after she had undergone training. Later on one month notice for termination of her service was issued vide office letter No. DST/Con/Sarla Koul/7 dated 22.09.1970 in terms of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. On the expiry of period of one month the order terminating her services was passed vide Memo No. Q-2043/KW/7 dated 19.10.1970 clarifying that her service would come to an end on 21.10.1970. According to the aforesaid communication sent by Divisional Engineer Telegraphs Srinagar Division the services of the writ petitioner- respondent were terminated with effect from the afternoon of 21.10.1970 as she was given one month's notice on 22.09.1970. According to the averments made by the writ petitioner- respondent, she initially preferred an appeal/representation against the aforesaid order which remained pending.

(3.) After a period of about 15 years she preferred WP no. 879/1985. The writ petition was decided on 05.08.1986 with a direction to the appellant to furnish the writ petitionerrespondent a copy of the order by which her representation was rejected. In para 5 of the judgment it was observed that the appellants were to furnish a copy of the order whereby her representation was rejected and also indicate the reasons for such rejection. It was also clarified that in case her representation had not been disposed of the same was to be disposed of within two months from the date of order i.e. 05.08.1986 and the order disposing of the representation was to be conveyed to the writ petitioner- respondent. According to the averments made by the writ petitioner- respondent the order was actually passed on 26.09.1986. The appellants have maintained that the order of termination was in accordance with Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 (for brevity Temporary Rules).