Sureshna Devi vs H.R.T.C. and Another

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner was engaged as Part Time Sweeper in the month of May, 1994 in the Respondent-Corporation. Her services were terminated vide Annexure A-7, dated 6th May, 2005.

Mr. S.R. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that the termination of the Petitioner by the Respondent-Corporation is illegal, arbitrary; thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondents has justified the issuance of Annexure A-7, dated 6th May, 2005.

Petitioner was engaged on part time basis in the year 1994. She has been discharging her duties continuously since 1994. The

reason assigned for terminating the services of the Petitioner is that due to cloud burst the booking office of the Respondent-Corporation at Kotkhai was damaged and the same was now functioning from hired accommodation. The reason assigned for terminating the Petitioner's services, who had worked since 1994, is not satisfactory. Even if there was cloud burst and the building was shifted, the services of the Petitioner cold be utilized in the hired accommodation. It cannot be the case of the Respondent-Corporation that there was no need for part time Sweeper in the hired accommodation as well. It appears that the Respondent-Corporation has adopted vindictive attitude against the Petitioner. The office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister has requested the officers of the Respondent-Corporation to take a compassionate view towards the Petitioner, as is evident from Annexure A-5. The letter from the office of Hon'ble Chief Minister should have been considered in right perspective. She is a poor workman. She might have been forced by the circumstances to approach the Hon'ble Chief Minister's office since her grievances were not redressed by the authorities. The Petitioner though has been appointed on part time basis, but had worked for about ten years. She was required at least to be issued notice before the issuance of Annexure A-7, dated 6.5.2005. Petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences since she has lost her livelihood. The grounds assigned in the office order are whimsical and arbitrary. The Respondent-Corporation being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India should have been alive to the problem of poor lady who had served the Respondent-Corporation devotedly for a period of ten years. Her case was required to be dealt with compassion and not in a vindictive manner. Since the Petitioner had worked for more than -

ten years on part time basis, her case was required to be considered for appointment as daily wage worker.

Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-7, dated 6.5.2005 is quashed and set aside. The Respondent-Corporation is directed to re-engage the Petitioner within a period of 15 days after production of certified copy of this judgment by the Petitioner. She is entitled to all the consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.