AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs:-
“(i)issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pending salary of the petitioner for the month of May 2022 i.e. Rs.55,000/-along with its interest @ 24% p.a in view of the appointment letter dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure P-2); and
(ii)Issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the NOC/relieving letter to the petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case”
Briefly stated, the petitioner wawas appointed as Chief Financial Officer on contractual basis with the Punjab State Bus Stand Management Company Limited (PUNBUS) vide appointment letter dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure P-2). The relevant extract from the said appointment letter reads as under:
“You are appointed at the post of Chief Financial Officer in Punjab State Bus Stand Management Company Limited (PUNBUS) on contract basis. For this post, you will be given Rs.50,000/- per month (lump sum) and with the increase of 10% per year. This contract is for 5 years.
2.This appointment is totally on the basis of contract and you have no right to consider this post as permanent. Your contract can be terminated any time in case your act and conduct is found unsatisfactory. In case, you want to resign from the post, then it is mandatory for you to serve one month notice or in lieu of the same, salary for the one month or the days less than one month. In case, company wants to terminate you, then the company will also give one month notice or lieu of the same, the salary for one month or any days less than the month. But prior to removal due to misconduct, you will be given an opportunity of being heard though in this situation the condition of one month notice period will not applicable.”
It is the case of the petitioner that she tendered her resignation on 06.05.2022 (Annexure P-3), wherein it has been stated that due to family and health issues, it had become difficult for her to continue with her job. She further requested that the period from 06.05.2022 to 05.06.2022 be treated as the notice period.
Per contra, the stand taken up by the respondents in their written statement is that the petitioner stopped coming to the office with effect from 06.05.2022 i.e. the date on which she submitted her resignation, and remained absent thereafter despite issuance of various reminders and since the petitioner has not performed the duties, therefore, she is not entitled to the salary for the month of May, 2022.
Since disputed questions of fact including whether the petitioner actually discharged her duties during the notice period and/or whether she remained absent, are involved in the present petition and would require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the same cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction.
Consequently, this Court is of the view that no interference is called for in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The present petition is accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other legal remedy, as may be available to her, in accordance with law.