PADMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner passed Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1984. She then passed 1st Year of T.D.C. in the year 1985. She also passed Hindi Stenography Test from Bhasha Vibhag. She was initially appointed as part time Hindi Typist (L.D.C.) in the office of the Chief Engineer(Irrigation), Rajasthan w.e.f. 16.7.88. This appointment was made against the vacant post of Typist(L.D.C) in the office of the Executive Engineer, Ghaggar Flood Control Division, Suratgarh. This is evident from Annexure-1. The petitioner claims that although, she was described as part time employee, full time work was taken from her between 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. at par with regularly appointed employees. She was initially paid Rs. 365/- per month. Subsequently, this amount was enhanced to Rs. 482/-. Her service has been terminated w.e.f. 31.1.92 on the basis of order dated, 29.1.92 issued by the Executive Engineer, Ghaggar Flood Control Division, Suratgarh. The Executive Engineer has passed this order in pursuance of the letter No. Steno/M-11/92/36, dated, 17.1.92 written by the Chief Engineer(Irrigation), Rajasthan Jaipur.

(2.) In her writ petition the petitioner has stated that she filed writ petition No. 1076/92 claiming salary on the basis of principle of equal pay for equal work. That writ petition is still pending. She had expressed apprehension about the termination of her service and now that apprehension of hers has become a reality. The petitioner has stated that termination of her service amounts to retrenchment. However, before bringing about termination of her service provisions of Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. She had rendered more than 240 days of service in a period of one year immediately preceding the date of her termination from service, but she was neither given notice nor pay in lieu thereof nor she was given retrenchment compensation. More over, the post of Typist (LDC) has not been abolished and without any justification her service has been terminated.

(3.) In her additional affidavit dated, 4.5.92, the petitioner has stated that she had applied on 16.4.92 and 25.4.92 for supply of copy of the letter dated-17.1.92 issued by the Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Jaipur, but the said letter has not been furnished to her. Copies of both the applications have been enclosed as Annexures-4 and 5 alongwith the additional affidavit.