Smt. Sandhya Singh vs State of M.P. and others

This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.2.2012 passed in W.P. 1913 of 2009(s) by which the petition claiming benefit of earlier service rendered by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that in the representation the petitioner had given an undertaking that she would not claim the earlier period of service, in case she was given fresh appointment. Learned Single Judge considered the aforesaid aspect and held that in view of the specific undertaking furnished by the petitioner, she was not entitled for any relief and dismissed the petition.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Instructor and subsequently designated as Training Officer in the Department of Employment and Training, Government of M.P. vide order dated 19.12.1981. The appointment of the appellant was on probation for a period of two years. After completion of probation period she was confirmed on the post. Thereafter the appellant remain absent though had sent various applications seeking extension of the leave. However, when the appellant had not joined the services, her services were terminated vide order dated 30.1.1985 (Annexure P-6) of the writ petition. Thereafter, the appellant continued to submit her representation to the authorities and finally a representation Annexure P-R-1 was filed by the appellant on 19.11.1999. On the aforesaid representation a fresh appointment order dated 8.10.2002 was issued granting fresh appointment to the petitioner on the post of Training Officer. In the said order it was specifically mentioned that she would not be entitled to claim any benefit of her past services. Appellant had joined the services and continued for a period of seven years. Thereafter, she had claimed regularisation of the period between 30.1.1985 and 8.10.2002, during the period in which she had remained out of job. The matter was contested by the respondents on the ground that the termination order dated 30.1.1985 was never challenged by the appellant and in view of the specific undertaking filed by the appellant, she was appointed afresh so she was not entitled to claim any benefit for the aforesaid period. The learned Single Judge considered this aspect and dismissed the writ petition against which this appeal has been filed.

Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to convince that the appellant was a permanent employee and without holding any departmental enquiry, her services could not have been terminated but the fact remains that the termination order dated 30.1.1985 was never challenged by the appellant though she had continued to make representations. Lastly she had submitted a representation dated 19.11.1999 in which the appellant had specifically filed an undertaking that in case she is appointed afresh then she shall not claim any benefit of past services. On the aforesaid undertaking she was appointed afresh by order dated 8.10.2002. In view of the specific undertaking filed by the appellant, if she was appointed afresh, this was a fresh appointment and the appellant was not entitled to claim any benefit for the period between 30.1.1985 and 8.10.2002. The aforesaid appointment was a conditional one and if the appellant was aggrieved by the aforesaid, then she ought to have assailed the aforesaid condition immediately after the appointment. But the appellant had not challenged the aforesaid for a period of seven years, took benefit of the order and thereafter for the first time in 2009 the aforesaid condition was challenged. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition in which we do not find any error warranting interference in this appeal. This appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.