Smt. Mansha Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Smt. Mansha Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Himachal Pradesh Decided Jun 01, 2011

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/919549

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/919549
Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Judge: Kuldip Singh, J.
Decided On: Jun 01, 2011
Case Number: CWP (T) No. 12392 of 2008
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Mansha Devi

Advocate Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Adv.

Respondent

State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Advocate Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Adv.

Excerpt

1. the petitioner has prayed that oral termination of her services on 25.11.2005 by respondent no.3 is wrong, illegal, the respondents may be directed to pay salary of ` 300/- for the month of november, 2005 to the petitioner. 2. the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as sweepress on 7.11.1996 by respondent no.3 on pta fund on salary ` 300/- per month in govt. senior secondary school, sandhol. 3. the petitioner continuously served on the post of sweepress in govt. senior secondary school, sandhol, but all of a sudden, her services were terminated orally by respondent no.3 on 25.11.2005 without assigning any reason. it has been stated that oral termination dated 25.11.2005 of petitioner is wrong, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice. it has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner was confirmed/approved by the parents teachers association. the services of the petitioner were terminated after nine years without assigning any reason. the petitioner has not been paid salary for the month of november, 2005. she never remained absent and she served in govt. sr. secondary school, sandhol till her services were terminated. 4. the petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply. it has been admitted that the petitioner was appointed as sweepress by respondent no.3 on pta fund at ` 300/- per month. the services of the petitioner were terminated as she remained absent from the school w.e.f. 6.12.2005. she was asked to join by principal vide letter dated 15.12.2005 before 20.12.2005 but she failed to join, hence her services were terminated. the respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties. in the reply, it has been stated that the petitioner absented from the school on 6.12.2005. the principal of the school on 15.12.2005 had written letter to the petitioner to join before 20.12.2005, but she did not join and her services were terminated. in the reply,.....

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner has prayed that oral termination of her services on 25.11.2005 by respondent No.3 is wrong, illegal, the respondents may be directed to pay salary of ` 300/- for the month of November, 2005 to the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sweepress on 7.11.1996 by respondent No.3 on PTA fund on salary ` 300/- per month in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Sandhol.

3. The petitioner continuously served on the post of Sweepress in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Sandhol, but all of a sudden, her services were terminated orally by respondent No.3 on 25.11.2005 without assigning any reason. It has been stated that oral termination dated 25.11.2005 of petitioner is wrong, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice.

It has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner was confirmed/approved by the Parents Teachers Association. The services of the petitioner were terminated after nine years without assigning any reason.

The petitioner has not been paid salary for the month of November, 2005. She never remained absent and she served in Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Sandhol till her services were terminated.

4. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply. It has been admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Sweepress by respondent No.3 on PTA fund at ` 300/- per month. The services of the petitioner were terminated as she remained absent from the school w.e.f. 6.12.2005. She was asked to join by Principal vide letter dated 15.12.2005 before 20.12.2005 but she failed to join, hence her services were terminated. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the reply, it has been stated that the petitioner absented from the school on 6.12.2005. The Principal of the school on 15.12.2005 had written letter to the petitioner to join before 20.12.2005, but she did not join and her services were terminated. In the reply, no date of termination of the services of the petitioner has been stated. On the contrary, the petitioner in the petition has stated that her services were terminated on 25.11.2005.

It is not believable that when the Principal of the school allegedly asked the petitioner to join the duty vide letter dated 15.12.2005 before 20.12.2005, the petitioner did not join her duty and rushed to the court against termination of her services. The letter dated 15.12.2005 has not been placed on record nor the mode and the date when the services of the petitioner were terminated have been pleaded in the reply. The stand taken by the respondents in the reply is not supported by corroborative material. The petitioner has made out a case for declaring oral termination dated 25.11.2005 wrong and illegal. There is nothing on record that salary of petitioner upto 25.11.2005 has been paid to her.

6. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The oral termination of the services of the petitioner as Sweepress in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Sandhol by respondent No.3 is held wrong, illegal, respondent No.3 is directed to re-engage the petitioner on PTA funds in two weeks from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner with all consequential benefits except actual wages till the date of re-engagement of the petitioner.

7. The respondent No.3 shall also pay salary to petitioner from 1.11.2005 to 25.11.2005 within the same period.

8. The petition stands disposed of on above terms.

Same Court & Year Himachal Pradesh · 2011 Same Parties Smt. Mansha Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh and ors. Same Subject Education Same Judge Kuldip Singh, J.