AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The impugned order dated 1st May, 2008 declines relief to the appellant treating the order dated 23.4.2005 as a fresh appointment order.
Unfortunately, relevant facts have not been captured in the impugned order. We do so.
The appellant was selected as a Para Teacher after due selection process was undergone by her and on 4.9.2000 was appointed as a Para Teacher
in Gram Panchayat, Lunawas Khara. She joined service.
On a complaint made by one Kamla Kanwar W/o Bhanwar Singh, without putting the appellant to any notice her service was terminated on
1.9.2001. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4090/2001 filed by the appellant was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 4.9.2002. The order
terminating appellant’s service was set aside and it was directed that the appellant would be reinstated in service forthwith along with all
consequential benefits.
The decision dated 4.9.2002 was challenged by way of D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.614/2002 which was disposed of on 17.9.2002.
Retaining the directions issued by the learned Single Judge quashing the order of termination and directing restatement of the appellant with all
consequential benefits, the Division Bench permitted the respondents to hold a proper enquiry with respect to the complaint made by Kamla Kanwar.
We note at this stage that the appellant is Kamla Kanwar W/o Manohar Singh and the complainant is Kamla Kanwar W/o Bhanwar Singh Sisodia.
The appellant was accordingly required to be reinstated in service for which order dated 23.4.2005 was passed. The learned Single Judge has
treated the said order as one of fresh appointment which ex-facie is incorrect.
We note that the respondents proceeded to hold an enquiry against the appellant with respect to the complaint made by Kamla Kanwar W/o
Bhanwar Singh Sisodia and found the complaint to be frivolous.
Under the circumstances the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the order dated 23.4.2005 is an order of fresh appointment is incorrect.
The order gave effect to the decision dated 4.9.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge which set aside the order of termination and directed
reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
Thus, the appellant would be entitled to the wages/honorarium for the period interregnum 1.9.2001 till she was reinstated in service vide order
dated 23.4.2005.
We order accordingly.
The appeal is disposed of.