Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 292 (HP)

Urmila Chauhan v. Managing Director & Ors.

2021-05-04

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2021
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- "A. Issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to regularize the service of the petitioner as TGT Music who has been working as TGT Music from last 11 years. B. Issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to renew the contract of service of petitioner as TGT Music w.e.f. 25.04.2017. C. Issue of an ex parte ad interim order or direction to respondents No. 1 to 4 to not to discontinue the contract of service of the petitioner and further not to recruit any other person for the said job, during the pendency of the writ petition." 2. The case of the petitioner is that she did her M.A. in Music (Vocal), in the year 2003, followed by M.Phil. in Music in the year 2004. She thereafter did her Ph.D in Music (Vocal) in the year 2014 from Himachal Pradesh University. She qualified UGC NET examination twice in the year 2004 and 2005 and also State Level Eligibility test in the year 2004. She also passed Sangeet Prabhakar examination from Prayag Sangeet Samiti Allahabad in the year 2004 as well as All India Written Test for teachers conducted by Army Welfare Education Society in the year 2009. Respondent-Society advertised the post of TGT Music in the year 2006. The petitioner participated in the selection process undertaken and being successful was appointed as TGT Music from 8th April, 2006 to 31st March, 2007. She thereafter was again subjected to the selection process and was appointed as TGT Music from 9th April, 2007 to 31st March, 2008. In the year 2008, respondent-Society again advertised the post of TGT Music and petitioner being successful in the interview was again offered appointment on temporary basis from 08.04.2008 to 31st March, 2009. She was again subjected to selection process in the year 2009, and being successful, was again offered appointment as TGT Music on contract basis vide letter dated 01.04.2009 from 03.04.2009 to 02.04.2012. The petitioner was thereafter engaged on contractual basis from 10.04.2012 to 09.04.2015. She was engaged from 17.04.2015 to 16.04.2016 and from 25.04.2016 to 24.4.2017. 3. She was again subjected to selection process in the year 2009, and being successful, was again offered appointment as TGT Music on contract basis vide letter dated 01.04.2009 from 03.04.2009 to 02.04.2012. The petitioner was thereafter engaged on contractual basis from 10.04.2012 to 09.04.2015. She was engaged from 17.04.2015 to 16.04.2016 and from 25.04.2016 to 24.4.2017. 3. According to the petitioner, she had submitted various representations praying for her regularization but as the services of the petitioner were not being regularized, despite her being in service of respondent-Society for more than a decade, she filed present writ petition praying for issuance of the directions to the said respondent to regularize her services. It was further pleaded in the writ petition that on account of her being in family way, she had sought maternity leave, which stood granted in her favour, and she was apprehending that respondent-Society may engage someone else by not granting extension to her services, and therefore, a prayer was made that during the pendency of the petition, no other person be appointed in her place. It is on this background that this writ petition stood filed. The petition was filed in the Court on 17th of March, 2017. 4. The petition is opposed by respondent No. 3/ Society inter alia on the ground that respondent-Society is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India because it is neither funded by Central Government nor by State Government. As per it, respondent No. 3 is a school run by Army Welfare Education Society, which is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as its infrastructure was created out of Regimental Funds which are not public funds, therefore, said respondent is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The factum of the petitioner having been engaged as TGT Music on temporary and contract basis is not disputed in the response, but it stood mentioned in the reply that as the petitioner was appointed on temporary/contract basis in terms of the letter of appointment issued to her, wherein it was clearly stipulated that on coming to an end of the period of her job, to which she was engaged, she will have no lein over the job, and therefore, her services stood automatically terminated. It further stood mentioned in the reply that respondent-Society conducted fresh selection process for the post of TGT Music by holding interviews, in which the petitioner did not participate and one Mrs. Sangeeta Sahota stood appointed as TGT Music on 21st April, 2017. As per respondent-Society, as the petitioner was aware that her appointment on temporary and contractual basis did not confer upon her any right of regularization, she had no right to pray for regularization of her services. It is further the stand of said respondent that even the working of the petitioner was not satisfactory and the same stood reflected in the annual confidential reports so prepared of the petitioner. 5. By way of rejoinder, the petitioner reiterated the stand taken in the petition and has denied the averments made in the reply. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, name of respondent No. 1 was deleted from the array of respondents and no independent reply to the petition has been filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 (who post deletion of name of respondent No. 1 have become respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent-Society, which was initially arrayed as respondent No. 4, has become respondent No. 3 post amendment of memo of parties and is being mentioned hereinafter as respondent No. 3). 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as record of the case, which was made available by respondent No. 3/Society. 8. Respondent No. 3 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as Army Welfare Education Society. In terms of Army Welfare Education Society Rules and Regulations Act, Volume-I, for Army Public Schools, said society in August, 2011, was running 128 schools and 12 professional colleges all over India. The parameters which now stand well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are that the expression "any person or authority" used in Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not only confined to statutory authorities and Instrumentalities of the State but may, in appropriate case, include any other person or body performing "public function/duty". The parameters which now stand well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are that the expression "any person or authority" used in Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not only confined to statutory authorities and Instrumentalities of the State but may, in appropriate case, include any other person or body performing "public function/duty". It is also well settled that imparting education to students at large is a public function and if any Body or Authority, as the case may be, is actually imparting education to the students at large, then irrespective of the status of any such authority, it should be made amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. {see , titled as Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and others, (2015) 16 SCC 530 decided on 15.12.2015}. 9. As mentioned above, respondent No. 3 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Vol.-1 of the Rules and Regulations for Army Public Schools which are run by the said Society defines its aims and objectives mentioned in Chapter 1 thereof as under:- "Aims and Objectives 5. The aims and objectives of the Army Welfare Education Society as under:- (a) To create or augment Educational and Technical/Professional/Vocational training facilities to meet the needs of children of Army Personnel including widows & ex-servicemen (Army). (b) To promote/impart higher education including technical and professional education to the wards of Army personnel including widows and ex-servicemen (Army). Professional education will include disciplines of Engineering, Medicine, Hospitality, Law, Education, Management, Fashion and Design and any other subject that will be considered relevant from time to time. (c) To develop co-educational Army Public Schools for imparting quality education at affordable cost to the children of Army personnel including ex Army personnel. (d) To issue guidelines, co-ordinate curriculum and empower teachers with respect to Army Pre Primary Schools to facilitate smooth transition of students to schools. (e) To prepare the students for All India Secondary School and All India Senior School Certificate (10+2 stage) examinations of the Central Board of Secondary Education with a common syllabi thus enabling the children of personnel who are transferred to be admitted in mid-session. (f) To promote development of academic excellence, discipline, personal character, high sense of values and national integration among the children of Army personnel. (g) To promote sports and co-curricular activities. (f) To promote development of academic excellence, discipline, personal character, high sense of values and national integration among the children of Army personnel. (g) To promote sports and co-curricular activities. (h) To gradually create adequate hostel facilities in selected institutions/ Stations on as required basis. (j) To encourage all educational institutions established by the Society to attain financial selfsufficiency within a reasonable period so that welfare funds allotted for educational facilities can be utilized for other educational projects. (k) Undertaking fund raising activities for augmenting the resources made available from welfare funds. (l) To do such other things which are incidental to the promotion of the aforementioned aims and objectives." 10. Clause 11 of Chapter-2 thereof further provides as under:- "General 11. Army Welfare Education Society is a registered body under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 vide Registrar of Societies Delhi Administration, Delhi, Certificate No. S/13459, dated 29 April 1983 for the purpose of establishing and running Army Public Schools and vocational colleges/institutions. The Certificate of Registration of Army Welfare Education Society issued by Registrar of Societies, Delhi is attached as Appendix A." 11. In terms of Clause 14 of Chapter 2 (supra), the Board of Governors of the respondent-Society comprises of the following:- "Board of Governors 14. Board of Governors is the Governing Body which would lay down policy guidelines for the management and functioning of the institutions. The Governing Body shall consist of the under mentioned officers and any other person(s) nominated by the President of elected by the governing Body. President Chief of the Army Staff Vice Presidents Vice Chief of the Army Staff. - General Officer Commanding-in-Chief HQ Southern Command. - General Officer Commanding-in-Chief HQ Eastern Command -General Officer Commanding-in-Chief HQ Western Command - General Officer Commanding-in-Chief HQ Central Command -General Officer Commanding-in-Chief HQ Eastern Command - General Officer Commanding-in-Chief HQ Northern Command - General Officer Commanding-in-Chief HQ South Western Command - General Officer Commanding-in-Chief HQ ARTRAC Members - Adjutant General - Quartermaster Generals - Engineer-in-Chief - Director General, Ceremonials & Welfare. Member Secretary -Managing Director Army Welfare Eduction society." 12. The aims and objectives of the Society leave no doubt that the society has been constituted to create or augment Educational and Technical/Professional/Vocational training facilities to meet the needs of children of Army Personnel etc. 13. Member Secretary -Managing Director Army Welfare Eduction society." 12. The aims and objectives of the Society leave no doubt that the society has been constituted to create or augment Educational and Technical/Professional/Vocational training facilities to meet the needs of children of Army Personnel etc. 13. High Court of Allahabad in Rachna Gupta vs. Union of India "Case:-Service Single No.-7910 of 2010), decided on 24th April, 2014, has held that writ petition against Army Public Schools is maintainable. While arriving at the said conclusion, it relied upon the observations made by Uttrakhand High Court in case titled as Trilochan Singh vs. Committee of Management, Army School, Hempur and others (Special Appeal No. 371 of 2012), in which, Uttarakhand High Court observed that society and the schools established by the society are directly and substantially part of the Indian Army and, accordingly, it cannot be said that the society and its schools are not authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Allahabad High Court also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the said Court in Shreyaskar Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and Others (Special Appeal No. 1501 of 2007), decided on 26.11.2010, in which, the Division Bench had held that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable even against a private body if the body was discharging public duty or public obligations of public nature. Allahabad High Court further held that the Army Public Schools affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education has to perform functions according to the provisions of the Act, instructions and regulations framed by the CBSE. Army Public School is imparting education from Class I to class XII, which is a public function and since public duty has been imposed by the Act 35 of 2009 in view of Article 21A of the Constitution of India, a writ is certainly maintainable. On these bases, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that Army Public School was certainly amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 14. Similarly, Delhi High Court in Writ petition (c) No. 1845 of 2014, titled as Anita Soharu Guleria vs. Directior of Education and others and other connected matters, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, allowed the writ petition filed against an Army Public School obviously run by the respondent-Society by holding as under:- "8. Similarly, Delhi High Court in Writ petition (c) No. 1845 of 2014, titled as Anita Soharu Guleria vs. Directior of Education and others and other connected matters, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, allowed the writ petition filed against an Army Public School obviously run by the respondent-Society by holding as under:- "8. I am really perturbed to note that Army public School seems to think itself above the law. In spite of the finality achieved to the judgment in the case of Narendra Singh Nain (supra), inasmuch as, the said judgment has achieved finality being not set aside by the higher courts. Army Public School even thereafter insists on overreaching the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973as also the law as laid down by this Court. There are literally, I can say so, dozens of cases that have come up for hearing where Army Public School has acted in a most unbecoming manner by insisting that its illegal actions must be overlooked and condoned by the court. This is unacceptable and I hope that the management of the Army Public School takes notice and acts in accordance with law failing which in my opinion the Directorate of Education must stop in and it must cause the Army Public School to act in accordance with law with DSEAR 1973. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner will be taken to have been confirmed in services from the first date of working of the fourth academic year in which the petitioner would have commenced working with the respondent No.3-School in the present case the said date would be 8.4.2013.Considering that Army Public School is consistently and defiantly violating the law, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 20,000/-." 15. Said judgment was assailed by way of a letters patent appeal alongwith other connected appeals and the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide judgment dated 29th October, 2015, passed in LPA No. 223 of 2015, titled as Army Welfare Education Society and another vs. Manju Nautiyal and another. While upholding the order passed by learned Single Judge, Hon'ble Division Bench, that too in the matter of regularization of contractual employees, held as under:- "27. While upholding the order passed by learned Single Judge, Hon'ble Division Bench, that too in the matter of regularization of contractual employees, held as under:- "27. Concerning directions issued by the learned Single Judge that the Director of Eduction should look into the working of the two schools established by the first appellant, we agree with the same for the reason we find that large number of employees of the two Army Public Schools in litigation with their managing committee and we find that the appellants are indiscriminately restoring to contract appointments notwithstanding existence of permanent posts. In some cases like that of Sheeja Benoy, notwithstanding the nature of the work being perennial the appellants are not sanctioning a permanent post. The Director of Education would look into the strength of students and keeping in view the applicable norms determine the number of posts of teachers in various categories to the sanctioned. The Director of Education would also look into repeated tenure appointments made and extended for period between 5 to 10 years. We would expect the visit by the Director of Education to be friendly and intended to guide the appellants through the allays of the law and not to find false to take action against the management. We would also hope and expect that the appellants would work with transparency and as per law." Incidentally, the Special Leave to Appeal filed by Army Welfare Education Society against the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 12.02.2016. 16. This also demonstrates that the respondentSociety is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, and therefore, the preliminary objection of the respondentSociety that it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and the present writ petition is not maintainable, cannot be accepted. 17. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the appointment letters of the petitioner stand appended alongwith its reply filed by respondent No. 3 as Annexure RA/4. Perusal thereof demonstrates that the petitioner was engaged vide letter dated 7th April, 2006 as TGT Music on temporary basis for a specific period from 08.04.2006 to 31st March, 2007, in the pay scale of 5500-175-9000 per month and she was also to get dearness allowance and other allowances as applicable and free messing for self and subsidized accommodation. Perusal thereof demonstrates that the petitioner was engaged vide letter dated 7th April, 2006 as TGT Music on temporary basis for a specific period from 08.04.2006 to 31st March, 2007, in the pay scale of 5500-175-9000 per month and she was also to get dearness allowance and other allowances as applicable and free messing for self and subsidized accommodation. She was engaged thereafter vide letter dated 30th March, 2007, again on temporary basis as TGT Music on 9th April, 2007 to 31st March, 2008. This was followed by her engagement again vide letter dated 28th March, 2008 from 8th April, 2008 to 31st March, 2009 again on same terms and conditions. Thereafter, vide appointment letter dated 01.04.2009, the petitioner was appointed as TGT Music for a period of three years from 3rd April, 2009 to 2nd April, 2012 in the revised pay scale as per AWES, i.e. Army Welfare Education Society, Rules and Regulations Vol.-I amended from time to time. It was mentioned in this communication that the performance of the petitioner was to be reviewed after completion of one year, and also that after expiry of three years from the date of joining, she will automatically cease to be an employee of the school. Thereafter, vide appointment letter dated 24th March, 2012, the petitioner was again appointed on contract basis as TGT Music from 10th April, 2012 to 9th April, 2015 on total basic pay of 16,205/- per month. This was followed by issuance of another appointment letter dated 26th February, 2015, in terms whereof, the petitioner was again appointed on contract basis as TGT Music from 17th April, 2015 to 16th April, 2016. Vide appointment letter dated 26th February, 2016, the petitioner was again appointed on contract basis as TGT Music for a period of one year w.e.f. 25th April, 2016 to 24th April, 2017. 18. One thing which is evident from the communications referred to above is that de hors the fact that the petitioner was engaged on temporary/contractual basis for the period mentioned in the aforesaid appointment letters, the petitioner uninterruptedly and continuously served with respondent No. 3 as TGT Music from 8th April, 2006 onwards and she is still continuing on the rolls of respondent No. 3 by virtue of interim order passed by this Court. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that the reliefs with which the petitioner has approached the Court are already enumerated hereinabove. This petition was filed on 9th March, 2017. The term of the appointment letter in vogue at the time when the present writ petition was filed, was from 25th April, 2016 to 24th April, 2017. Yet, before the expiry of this period, respondent No. 3 appointed on Mrs. Sangeeta Sahota vide communication Annexure RB/4 as TGT Music on ad hoc basis for a specific period from 17th April, 2017 to 16th March, 2018. She is stated to have joined as such on 21st April, 2017. How and why respondent No. 3 offered appointment to said person is beyond the understanding of the Court keeping in view the fact that the period of contract last entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had not yet expired, and this act of respondent No. 3, in fact, gives credence to the apprehension of the petitioner as expressed in the petition, that on taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner was on maternity leave, respondent No. 3 was intending to appoint someone else in her place. Be that as it may, as Mrs. Sangeeta Sahota is not before this Court and further as her appointment in terms of Annexure R4/B is purely on ad hoc basis and only for a period of one year, this Court is not making any opinion on the same, save and except this Court is only adjudicating the prayer of the petitioner as to whether she has a right of regularization and continuation or not. 19. Herein above, I have already given the details of the appointment of the petitioner by respondent No. 3 from time to time on temporary/contract basis. Now a perusal of the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner especially vide appointment letters dated 01.04.2009, 24.03.2012, 26.02.2015, demonstrates that it was specifically mentioned in these appointment letters while offering appointment to the petitioner on contractual basis, that her service conditions were to be governed by the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) Rules and Regulations Vol.-1 for Army Public Schools, April 2008 and 19.09.2011. 20. Chapter 7 of the said Rules and Regulations of 2011 deals with classification, recruitment, qualifications and terms and conditions of Service. 20. Chapter 7 of the said Rules and Regulations of 2011 deals with classification, recruitment, qualifications and terms and conditions of Service. Clause 116 of this Chapter classifies the teaching staff into five categories: (a) Regular; (b) Contractual; (c) Temporary/Adhoc; (d) Casual and (e) Part time. In terms of this Clause, contractual appointments may be made for a fixed period of three years and pay and allowances of teachers employed on contract basis are to be at par with the regular teachers. The services of the contractual teachers are liable to be terminated as per the terms of agreement/appointment letter. The service conditions of contractual teachers are envisaged in Clause 128 of the said Chapter. This Clause inter alia contemplates that contractual teachers will be appointed for a maximum period of three years, and after its expiry, their appointment shall automatically be terminated and if a fresh contract is made, then there will be a break of minimum seven days. Clause 128(j) of said Chapter provides as under:- "(j) For Contractual TGTs only:- Contractual TGTs will be appointed as regular TGTs after completion of two years works experience in the same school as contractual TGTs in the relevant category subject to the percentages laid down in the SOP for teachers selection. The requirement of one year probation period on their appointment as regular TGTs will be dispense with provided the gap between ceasation of appointment of contractual TGT and assumption of regular TGTs is not more than 60 days in the same school." 21. Thus in terms of the abovementioned clause, a contractual TGT has a right for regularization after completion of five years work experience in the same school as contractual TGT in the relevant category, subject to the percentages laid down in the SOP for teachers selection. The term of five years in the copy of regulations handed over to the Court by respondent No. 3 has been cut by hand and the word 'five' has been substituted by 'two'. Meaning thereby that the term of five years work experience on contract basis has now been reduced to two years. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter still remains that a contractual employee was entitled for regularization of services as TGT in the relevant category upon completion of five/two years service, as the case may be. 22. Meaning thereby that the term of five years work experience on contract basis has now been reduced to two years. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter still remains that a contractual employee was entitled for regularization of services as TGT in the relevant category upon completion of five/two years service, as the case may be. 22. Coming to the facts of the present case, though initially, the petitioner was engaged on temporary basis but she was offered appointment on contract basis also in continuation of services rendered by her on temporary basis vide appointment letter dated 01.04.2009. The period of contract specified in this appointment letter was from 03.04.2009 to 02.04.2012. It was further mentioned in the appointment letter that the service conditions of the petitioner were to be governed by AWES Rules and Regulations Vol-I for Army Schools/Army Public Schools (Red Book Apr 2008 Edition) as amended from time to time. After expiry of this contractual period, the petitioner was again engaged on contract basis vide appointment letter dated 24.03.2012 w.e.f. 10.04.2012 to 09.04.2015. In this appointment letter, it was inter alia mentioned that service conditions of the petitioner were to be governed by Army Welfare Education Society Rules and Regulations as amended from time to time with reference to Rules and Regulations Vol.-1 for Army Public Schools (September 2011 Edition). After the expiry of this term, the petitioner continued to be engaged afresh on contractual basis, as has been mentioned in detail by me earlier also. This demonstrates that the continuation of the petitioner on contract basis by the respondent-Society conferred upon her the right of regularization in terms of Clause 128(j) of Chapter 7 of 2011 Rules. 23. It is not the case of respondent No. 3 before the Court that either the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as a TGT Music or that she was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria contemplated in the 2008 Rules and Regulations or 2011 Rules and Regulations, regulating the appointment and regularization of TGT contract teachers. In this background, the act of respondent-Society of not regularizing the services of the petitioner in terms of Clause 128(j) upon completion of specified number of years of service by the petitioner on contract basis is arbitrary and not sustainable in law. In this background, the act of respondent-Society of not regularizing the services of the petitioner in terms of Clause 128(j) upon completion of specified number of years of service by the petitioner on contract basis is arbitrary and not sustainable in law. The denial of regularization to the petitioner is an act of colourable exercise of power by respondent No. 3-Society, as what the Society has been conveniently doing is that it has been extracting the work of a regular Music Teacher from the petitioner from the year 2006 till the filing of the petition by her, either on temporary or on contractual basis, thus denying the benefits of regular appointment to the petitioner. This is not acceptable from a Society, which is performing a public duty. An argument has been raised on behalf of respondent No. 3/Society that as the petitioner had duly accepted the terms and conditions of her engagement, be it on temporary or on contractual basis, she was bound by the same and the contractual appointment did not confers upon her any right of regularization. In my considered view, in the peculiar facts of this case, this contention of respondent No. 3 does not have any merit. As has been mentioned hereinabove also, the Rules and Regulations framed by respondent-Society governing the appointments of contractual TGTs confers upon such appointees a right of regularization after prescribed number of years of service. This right of regularization has been denied to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 by not following its own Rules and Regulations. Even otherwise, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the bargaining power of the petitioner cannot be compared with that of respondent No. 3, and obviously, the petitioner had to agree to the terms and conditions which stood incorporated in the appointment letters issued to her by respondent No. 3 and also agreements signed by her with respondent No. 3, are nothing but dotted line agreements. 24. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 3 is directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as TGT Music after completion of five years of service on contract basis, by taking her appointment on contract basis w.e.f. 19th September, 2011, i.e. the date when Army Welfare Education Society, Vol.-1, Rules and Regulations for Army Public Schools are stated to have come in force, with all consequential benefits. This direction is being passed by the Court keeping in view the fact that though the petitioner was initially appointed since 07.04.2006 on year to year basis, on temporary basis, however, thereafter as from 03.04.2009, her appointment was on contractual basis, through, initially for a period of three years in two terms, followed by fresh contractual appointment for one year thereafter, which was continuing as on the date when this petition was filed. This Court is not making any observation with regard to the effect of this judgment on the appointment of Mrs. Sangeeta Sahota, as she was appointed only for a period of one year on ad hoc basis and her rights, if any, qua respondent No. 3, are independent and the adjudication of this petition in favour of the petitioner will have no effect upon the same. 25. The petition is disposed of in above terms with the direction that in case the consequential benefits which has accrued to the petitioner are paid to her within a period of 90 days from today, then no interest shall be payable on it and if the same is not paid within abovesaid period, then simple interest @ 6% per annum shall be payable on the amount due as from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.