Judgment:
Smt.
Pooja Namdeo versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.139 / 2010 11.2.2014.
Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.P.Rai, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Petitioner was appointed as a Cook in the Nutrition Rehabilitation Centre C.H.C.Budhar, vide order dated 24.10.2009 the selection of petitioner was done on the basis of the recommendation made by the District Level Selection Committee and after selection an agreement was executed between the petitioner and department concerned on 30.11.2009 making a contract appointment for a period of one year.
Indicating the provisions of clause 6 of the contract, service of petitioner was terminated vide order dated 11/12/2009 and as the contract has been terminated, this writ petition was filed.
While issuing notice, this court directed for continuing the petitioner in service and, therefore, since 7.1.2010 petitioner still continues in service.
Even though petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking regular appointment and continuation in service, respondents have filed reply and point out that petitioner's appointment was only for 1 year and as the contract period is already over, no further extension can be granted.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner point out that along with petitioner six other persons were appointed Smt.
Pooja Namdeo versus State of M.P.& ORS.and even though the petitioner is continuing by virtue of interim order passed on 7.1.2010, certain other employees have not been terminated and claiming parity with other employes, petitioner seeks further benefit in the matter.
Keeping in view the aforesaid contention advanced by Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel it is directed that before taking action against petitioner, respondents shall examine the claim of petitioner at par with the so called persons who are similarly situated and who are permitted to continue in service and thereafter taking note of benefit already granted to such persons, further action in the matter of dispensing with service of petitioner shall be taken.
On the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with detailed claim indicating particular of persons who have been continued in service after completion of contract, respondent shall examine the claim of petitioner and decide it by a speaking order.
Till then petitioner shall be continued to work on the post in question.
Needless to emphasize that, if found not entitled to, it shall be incumbent upon respondents to pass speaking order indicating the reasons.
With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-