Ranjit Kaur vs Smt. Satya Devi on 9 October, 2013

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ranjit Kaur vs Smt. Satya Devi on 9 October, 2013

Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain

COCP No.882 of 2012 (O&M)                              -1-




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH
                                     *****
                                    COCP No.882 of 2012 (O&M)
                                   Date of Decision: 09.10.2013
                                     *****
Ranjit Kaur
                                                   . . . .Petitioner
                               Versus
Smt. Satya Devi
                                                . . . . Respondent
                                     *****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
                                     *****
Present:    Mr.C.L. Pawar, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.S.S. Hira, Advocate,
            for the respondent.
                                      *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM No.20546-CII of 2013 Application is allowed.

COCP No.882 of 2012 The petitioner has filed this contempt petition for violating the order dated 16.1.2012, the relevant portion of which reads thus:-

"Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, states that as a matter of policy and subject to the petitioner's eligibility and availability of work, the Guest faculty employees like the petitioner are not to be substituted by another set of Guest Faculty employees and she shall be replaced by regularly appointed employee only."

COCP No.882 of 2012 (O&M) -2-

The petitioner filed the writ petition alleging that she was working as Guest Faculty Computer Operator and Programme Assistant in respondent No.4-Institute. She had sought direction that she be not relieved from her assignment with a view to adjust other Guest Faulty employee in her place.

In the contempt petition, it is alleged that the service of the petitioner has been terminated but nothing has been brought on record that after termination of the service of the petitioner another Guest Faculty employee has been employed by respondent No.4 rather a specific affidavit has been filed on 21.8.2012 in which it is alleged that the said trade of COPA has been discontinued for the session 2012-13.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 16.1.2012 passed by this Court, would have been violated, if respondent No.4 had replaced the petitioner by a Guest Faculty employee instead of replacing by a regular appointed employee but since her service has been terminated and there is no replacement by Guest Faculty, the remedy of the petitioner lies somewhere else and the present petition is not maintainable. Hence, the same is dismissed.

Rule discharged.

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 09.10.2013 JUDGE Vivek Pahwa Vivek 2013.10.10 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court