MANJU CHOUHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was initially appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Surdia purely on contract basis pursuant to an agreement executed on 30/04/2008 for one year commencing from 01/05/2008 till 30/04/2009, which was extended upto 28/02/2011 vide order dt.26/02/2010 (Ann.2). However, her services were terminated vide order dt.24/11/2010 in terms of Cl.(i) of the contract executed between the parties after having paid one month's salary in lieu of notice ? reference whereof has been made in the judgment dt. 06/12/2010, which was assailed in Special Appeal (Writ)-87/2011; however, for the reasons best known, petitioner withdrew the special appeal with liberty to file review petition. Hence instant review petition has been preferred wherein the office has pointed out delay of 41 days ? in regard to which application seeking condonation has been filed U/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Apart from the delay, this Court granted opportunity to the Counsel for arguing on merits of review petition.

(2.) MAIN thrust of the contention made by Counsel is that order dt.11/10/2010 annexed as Ann.1 to instant Review Petition was made the basis while terminating services of petitioner vide order dt.24/11/2010 impugned in CWP-15826/2010 and such an order of termination is stigmatic; in such circumstances, respondents could not have passed order terminating the contract of her service, without affording opportunity of hearing or holding inquiry which is minimal requirement in compliance of principles of natural justice under the law and in absence whereof, action of respondents authority terminating her services was wholly arbitrary warranting interference by this Court; and since the document dt.11/10/2010 could not be produced, it requires this Court to review earlier order.