Jharkhand High Court
WRIT PETITION 3697 of 2013 on 9 November 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3697 of 2013
------
Munni Kumari
......…PetitionerVersus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administration and Rajbhasa, Government of Administration and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Director, Department of Labour employment and Training Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Director, Department of Finance,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro
7. The Block Development Officer, Bokaro
...
...
... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Ganopadhyay, AdvocateFor the State: Mr. Ashok Kumar, J.C. to S.C. I------- 03/12.11.2013The petitioner has approached this Court challenging orderdated02.05.2013passedbythe Block Development Officer.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Computer Operator on 09.11.2006 on the payment of honorarium of Rs. 100/- per working day. Subsequently, honorarium was enhanced to Rs. 5000/- per month. The petitioner and others similarly situated persons preferred W.P.(S) No. 7965 of 2012 seeking enhancement of honorarium. The honorarium has been enhancedto Rs. 9500/- and was further enhanced to Rs. 10,500/-, however, these were again not paid to the petitioner and when the petitioner moved this Court seeking a direction for Amit/A.F.R.
enhancement of the honorarium, on a false plea the service of the petitioner has been terminated.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. perused the documents on record.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that after seven years of appointment, on a false pretext the service of the petitioner has been terminated. He has further submitted that, since the petitioner moved submitted that after seven years of appointment, on a false pretext the service of the petitioner has been terminated. He has further submitted that, since the petitioner moved before this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 7985 of 2012 for this reason the service of the petitioner has been terminated. reason the service of the petitioner has been terminated.
5. Mr. Ashok Kumar, J.C to S.C.I, appearing for the State of Jharkhand has resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis. of Jharkhand has resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis.
6. On a perusal of the documents on record particularly the impugned order dated 02.05.2013, I find that since the the impugned order dated 02.05.2013, I find that since the contract of the petitioner was not renewed by the Block Development Officer and since she had misconducted herself by misbehaving with other employees and disobeying the order of the superiors, her service was dispensed with. Since the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and her contract was not renewed by the Block Development Officer, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 02.05.2013.Block Development Officer and since she had misconducted herself by misbehaving with other employees and disobeying the order of the superiors, her service was dispensed with. Since the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and her contract was not renewed by the Block Development Officer, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 02.05.2013.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)