Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 18 (MEG)

Niva Kundu v. Union of India

2019-02-12

S.R.SEN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The matter came up for hearing. 2. Heard Mr. K. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Paul, learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondent/Union of India. 3. The brief fact of the petitioners case in a nutshell is that: "The petitioner was appointed on 25.8.1988 as an Upper Division clerk in the establishment of the Principal, Regional Vocational Training Institute, Tura in pursuance to a process of selection. The appointment of the petitioner although effected in pursuance to a process of a selection, was stated to be an adhoc appointment made for a period of six months. The petitioner was however continued with her service after the period mentioned in her order of appointment had expired and she was paid her salaries and also extended with other service benefits like annual increments, leave etc. The petitioner since the date of her initial appointment held a substantive vacant post in the establishment wherein she was appointed. However, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide issuance of an order dated 17.4.2002. The petitioner assailed the said order dated 17.4.2002 initially before the shillong bench of the Hon’ble Gauhati High court and thereafter before the Central Administrative tribunal, Gauhati Bench by way of filing of O.A. No. 253/2006. During the pendency of the said proceedings the petitioner continued in her service. The learned tribunal upon hearing the parties to the proceeding was pleased vide its order dated 29.1.2008 dismissed the said original application. Being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble High Court which was renumbered as WP(C) No. 101/2013. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgment and order dated 14.3.2014 had disposed off the writ petition with a direction that the order dated 29.1.2008 and the termination order dated 17.4.2002 are set aside so as to enable the respondents to take afresh decision or to issue fresh order under the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order dated 25.8.1998. The respondents have taken a decision on 27.4.2017 and have again terminated the service of the petitioner contrary of the direction given by this Hon’ble court and the terms and conditions of order dated 25.8.1988. Hence the petitioner being aggrieved by the arbitrary action passed by respondents have approached this Hon’ble court again." 4. The respondents have taken a decision on 27.4.2017 and have again terminated the service of the petitioner contrary of the direction given by this Hon’ble court and the terms and conditions of order dated 25.8.1988. Hence the petitioner being aggrieved by the arbitrary action passed by respondents have approached this Hon’ble court again." 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner, Smti. Niva Kundu was serving as a trainer in the Regional Vocational Training Institute for Women, Dakopgre, Tura, Meghalaya- 794101 for 32(thirty two) years and till date her service has not been regularized and the respondent has taken the stand that the petitioner may be removed as soon as another teacher comes from Kolkata and till date nobody has joined. 5. Learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondent/Union of India admits the fact that the petitioner was serving in the post for the last 32(thirty two) years. 6. In the light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel and taking the principle of natural justice and equity, I hereby direct the respondent not to disturb the petitioner and not to stall her service benefits in any manner. 7. With this observation and direction the instant writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of.