Jyoti Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 February, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jyoti Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 February, 2016

Bench: Deepak Sibal

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

           Sr. No.110+253-2

                                                         CWP No.25390 of 2015 (O&M)
                                                         Date of decision: 18.02.2016


           Jyoti Sharma                                                      ....Petitioner

                                             versus

           Union of India and others                                         ....Respondents



           CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL


           Present:             Mr. Manoj Kaushik, Advocate
                                for the petitioner.

                                Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate
                                for the applicants-respondents No.1 and 2.

                                Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana
                                for respondents No.3, 4, 6 and 7.

                                      * * *

           DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

C.M. No.1882-CWP of 2016 Through the present application, counter affidavit on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 is sought to be placed on the record.

Allowed as prayed for.

CM stands disposed of.

Main Case The petitioner was appointed as a Counselor (Female) on contract basis under the National Health Mission. Though, the scheme was to be continued upto 31.03.2016, the services of the petitioner were terminated in September 2015. Challenging her termination she has filed the present petition.

JYOTI SHARMA

2016.02.25 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.25390 of 2015 (O&M) -2-

Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana, on instructions from Mr. J.K. Sapra, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Faridabad states that petitioner's case would also be covered as per the statement made by him on behalf of the State in CWP No.20558 of 2015 titled as Rina Rani and others vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 17.02.2016.

Resultantly, the petitioner would be allowed to join as Counselor (Female) on the post on which she was working prior to the termination on her services till 31.03.2016 i.e. the date the scheme is in existence. It is further submitted that she would be paid salary from the date she joins till 31.03.2016.

The aforementioned statement made on behalf of the State satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioner. On such expression of satisfaction, the present petition has been rendered infructuous.

Ordered accordingly.

(DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE February 18, 2016 Jyoti 1 JYOTI SHARMA 2016.02.25 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court