Durga Devi W/O Late Ramesh Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in this oa the applicant has sought direction to the respondents to take her back in service.2. the brief facts of the case are that the applicant's husband was appointed by the respondents as ecr operator (salesman gde-ii) w.e.f.15.07.1995. the applicant's husband met with an accident and expired on 20.12.2003. thereupon, the applicant made a request for her appointment and she was accordingly issued appointment order dated 16.06.2004 as goods checker for a period of one year. however, the services of the applicant were terminated in may, 2006 without any notice. hence the o.a.3. when this oa came up for admission, shri g.c. nagar, learned counsel for the applicant, argued that the dismissal of the applicant is mala fide for the reason that she was dismissed because she dared to approach brig. h.p.s. dhillon, dy goc, delhi area in the g.o.c. (maj.gen. oberoi) meeting known as darbar to rquest for regularization of her services. the applicant thereafter submitted several representations but to no avail. it was further pointed out that in their letter dated 29.03.2007, the respondents have admitted that there is one employee, appointed along with her, who is continuing in the said trade.4. i have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material on record.5. from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the applicant was given an appointment for one year as a humanitarian measure on account of sudden death of her husband, who was working with the respondents. it was not, in any sense, a regular appointment against a regular post made following any recruitment procedure. under the circumstances, it did not vest the applicant with any inherent right to continue on the said post. a comparison of applicant's letter of engagement dated 16.04.2004 (typed copy) with the letter of 'appointment' of her deceased husband shows that whereas, her husband's letter states that the appointment is renewable, there is no such term in applicant's letter of appointment. it has also not been established that the applicant was occupying a civil post under the union of india.6. as regards the contention of the applicant that even though she has been discontinued, some of her juniors are continuing, the only admission made by the respondents in their letter dated 29.03.2007 is that one employee, who was employed along with the applicant is continuing in service. this does not amount to a junior being continued in preference to her.7. there is also on record a letter dated 11.04.2007 (annexure a-6), issued by the respondents to the applicant stating that at present there is no vacant post in house station canteen and, therefore, the request of the applicant for appointment cannot be considered. it has been further stated that as and when fresh appointments are made, the applicant will be informed accordingly.8. in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, i come to the conclusion that the applicant has not made out a case in support of her claim for continued appointment with the respondents. in terms of her letter of appointment the applicant knew very well that it was for a period of one year, she, therefore, cannot claim further continuance or regularization on the post, in view of the ratio of the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of secretary, state of karnataka and ors. v. umadevi 9. in the result, the oa is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. there will be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
1. In this OA the applicant has sought direction to the respondents to take her back in service.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant's husband was appointed by the respondents as ECR Operator (Salesman GDE-II) w.e.f.

15.07.1995. The applicant's husband met with an accident and expired on 20.12.2003. Thereupon, the applicant made a request for her appointment and she was accordingly issued appointment order dated 16.06.2004 as Goods Checker for a period of one year. However, the services of the applicant were terminated in May, 2006 without any notice. Hence the O.A.3. When this OA came up for admission, Shri G.C. Nagar, learned Counsel for the applicant, argued that the dismissal of the applicant is mala fide for the reason that she was dismissed because she dared to approach Brig. H.P.S. Dhillon, Dy GOC, Delhi Area in the G.O.C. (Maj.

Gen. Oberoi) meeting known as Darbar to rquest for regularization of her services. The applicant thereafter submitted several representations but to no avail. It was further pointed out that in their letter dated 29.03.2007, the respondents have admitted that there is one employee, appointed along with her, who is continuing in the said trade.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the material on record.

5. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the applicant was given an appointment for one year as a humanitarian measure on account of sudden death of her husband, who was working with the respondents. It was not, in any sense, a regular appointment against a regular post made following any recruitment procedure. Under the circumstances, it did not vest the applicant with any inherent right to continue on the said post. A comparison of applicant's letter of engagement dated 16.04.2004 (typed copy) with the letter of 'appointment' of her deceased husband shows that whereas, her husband's letter states that the appointment is renewable, there is no such term in applicant's letter of appointment. It has also not been established that the applicant was occupying a civil post under the Union of India.

6. As regards the contention of the applicant that even though she has been discontinued, some of her juniors are continuing, the only admission made by the respondents in their letter dated 29.03.2007 is that one employee, who was employed along with the applicant is continuing in service. This does not amount to a junior being continued in preference to her.

7. There is also on record a letter dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure A-6), issued by the respondents to the applicant stating that at present there is no vacant post in House Station Canteen and, therefore, the request of the applicant for appointment cannot be considered. It has been further stated that as and when fresh appointments are made, the applicant will be informed accordingly.

8. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I come to the conclusion that the applicant has not made out a case in support of her claim for continued appointment with the respondents. In terms of her letter of appointment the applicant knew very well that it was for a period of one year, she, therefore, cannot claim further continuance or regularization on the post, in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi 9. In the result, the OA is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. There will be no order as to costs.