AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-3, notice oftermination dated 13.4.2010, served upon her by theCommissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Petitioner has beenworking as Warden in Working Women Hostel, Sanjauli, since 1983.At the time of her appointment, hostel was being run by a Trust,known as Himachal Kalyan Nidhi. Hostel was transferred toMunicipal Corporation, vide agreement dated 20.12.1990, copyAnnexure P-2. Paragraph 4 of the agreement, provided for takingover of the services of the staff of the hostel.
Paragraph 8 of the agreement provided that a fivemember committee will be constituted for the management of thehostel and one of the five members would be nominated by theTrust.
Petitioner, who is now 70 years old, has been servedimpugned notice, Annexure P-3. It reads that on expiry of three months period, to be counted from the date of the service of notice,her services shall stand terminated, automatically. No reasons fortermination of service have been assigned in the notice. Prayer hasbeen made for quashing the notice.
Petition is opposed by the Municipal Corporation,impleaded as Respondent No. 1. In the reply it is stated thatPetitioner is already 70 years old, though normal retirement age ofthe employees is 58 years. A copy of resolution passed by theMunicipal Corporation, in its meeting held on 30.6.2010, has beenplaced on record, per which Petitioner has been ordered to beretired on payment of a lump sum equivalent to six months salary,i.e. Rs. 33000/-.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties andperused the record.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for theRespondents that Petitioner cannot claim herself to be an employeeof the Municipal Corporation. In fact, Petitioner does not claim thatshe is an employee of the Corporation or entitled to retrial benefits.Her plea is that when Trust was taken over, it was agreed that theterms and conditions of the employees already working, shall not bechanged to their disadvantage.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the veryfact that the Petitioner has been allowed to continue upto thepresent age of 70 suggests that she is not being treated asemployee of the Corporation, because if it were so, she would havebeen retired or at least would not have been in service, afterattaining the age of 58.
Rules, which were prevailing prior to take over of thehostel do not provide any terms and conditions, with regard to theservices of the employees of Trust. Rules simply say that Wardenshall be assisted by other staff and shall be the Incharge ofdiscipline, management, finance, accounts and day-to-dayadministration of the hostel.
Resolution for the retirement of the Petitioner, which isdated 30.6.2010 and a copy of which has been placed on recordtoday, has been passed by the Municipal Corporation and not by theManagement Committee, which as per Clause 8 of the agreement isresponsible for the management of the hostel. Impugned notice oftermination of the services of Petitioner has also been issued by theCommissioner, Municipal Corporation, and not by the ManagementCommittee, constituted under Clause 8 of the agreement.
When the agreement regarding take over of the hostelprovides that the hostel shall be managed by a Committee of fivemembers, one of whom shall be a nominee of the Trust and thePetitioner is not an employee of the Municipal Corporation, asindicated hereinabove, neither the Commissioner nor the MunicipalCorporation should have any authority to dispense with the servicesof the Petitioner. It is the management which is competent to takesuch a decision. In any case, neither in the impugned notice,Annexure P-3, nor in the aforesaid resolution dated 30th June, 2010,it is indicated as to why the services of the Petitioner are beingterminated. If she has been running and managing the affairs ofthe hostel for 12 years, after her attaining the normal age ofsuperannuation, she can be considered to be capable of doing so, even now, especially when there is nothing on record, indicatingthat she is not physically or mentally fit for the job.
In view of the above stated position, writ petition isallowed. Impugned notice, Annexure P-3 and resolution dated30.6.2010 of the Municipal Corporation, with regard to theretirement of the Petitioner, are quashed.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.