Shakuntala Devi vs Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1088 j&K

      THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU

                                                            SWP No. 1643/2007


                                                 Pronounced on:10th.09.2021.

Shakuntala Devi                                      .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                                  Through:-      Mr. Amrish Kapoor,
                                                 Advocate

                            V/s

Union of India and others                                     .....Respondent(s)

                                  Through:-      Mr. Vishal Sharma, ASGI

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
                                  JUDGMENT

01. The petitioner, being widow of Bansi Lal, who was working in

Border Security Force, was engaged as „AYA‟ under the scheme of

Rehabilitation in BSF Frontier Hospital BSF, Paloura, Jammu on

temporary basis as welfare measures vide order dated 28.10.1993. The

grievance of the petitioner is that she continued to work as „AYA‟ since her

engagement but the respondents after 31.07.2006 have not allowed her to

perform her duties, despite her repeated requests.

02. In this petition, the petitioner prays for grant of following reliefs :

"i).To command and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform her duties of post of „AYA‟ and release her salary regularly and regularize the period of forcible ouster from service with all consequential benefits;

(ii).To annul and quash the order of termination if any placed on record;

(iii).To pass such other orders or direction the Hon‟ble court may deem fit and proper in nature and circumstances of case."

03. It is submitted that respondents have terminated the services of the

petitioner without issuing any show cause notice and by holding any

enquiry or providing any opportunity of hearing to her, therefore, her

termination is arbitrary, illegal and the same requires to be set aside.

04. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was engaged under

„Special Relief Fund‟ with a view to provide financial assistance to

members of the Force, who were suffering from fatal diseases such as

Cancer, Renal failure, Heart related diseases etc. By virtue of this Fund,

they also created some posts only on temporary basis like „AYA‟, Safai

Karmachari, Creche Mother in BSF MI Rooms and Hospital as well as

Family Welfare Centers for the widows of BSF. These posts were created

to give chance to every such affected person to improve financial and

domestic condition after the death of their earning hands. The engagement

given to the petitioner was out of the „Special Relief Fund‟ and was on

contract basis for one year which was to be reviewed yearly, as such,

petitioner cannot have a permanent claim on the said post.

05. As the petitioner was widow of the late Carpenter Bansi Lal of 10th

Bn. BSF, she was provided a job of „AYA‟ in Frontier Hospital, Jammu

vide order No. 4801-4 dated 28.10.1993 on temporary basis as a welfare

measure. The FHQ(Adm Dte) vide letter No. 34/12/2001-ADM-

I/BSF/3021-420 dated 05.03.2003 and letter No. 20082-20381 dated

20.11.2003 had issued instructions that other widows of BSF personnel

should also be given the opportunity of working out of „Special Relief

Fund‟ on contract basis for one year and the same be reviewed yearly. The

petitioner was working in the Hospital up to 31.07.2006 but subsequently, a

Board of Officers was detailed to review her case. The recommendation of

the Board was forwarded to FHQ(Adm Dte) New Delhi, and, accordingly,

an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondents. She

was allowed to work on contract basis in Frontier Hospital Jammu for one

more year with effect from 01.08.2005 to 31.07.2006. In terms of the

agreement, her engagement was on contract and was purely temporary in

nature and the same came to an end on the expiry of terms of contract.

06. The Board of Officers were detailed vide HQ Order No.

ADM/AYA/Appt/2006/6670-71 dated 18.07.2006 again to review her

suitability alongwith all those women (widows) who were in need and in

queue for seeking job of „AYA‟ out of „Special Relief Fund‟. Twenty

candidates were called upon for interview and assessment test was

conducted on 18.08.2006. From these, ten candidates, including petitioner

appeared before the Board of Officers. The Board after considering their

educational certificates and the present domestic condition, selected only

02 candidates for engagement as „AYA‟ and petitioner was not selected as

she could not make the grade.

07. The petitioner after having accepted terms and conditions and

participated in the selection process, thus, cannot now turn around to

challenge the same. The fresh process of selection was initiated in which

petitioner participated and failed to be selected in view of the candidates

who were better educated and had pressing domestic need, as such, the

petitioner after having failed to be selected approached this Court

concealing the fact that she was not selected. She again approached the

respondents to review the same but could not be selected because of her

low merit and subsequently filed a writ petition, though all along knowing

well that the contract had expired and she had participated in the fresh

selection also. The petitioner has, thus, concealed these material facts from

this Court and is not entitled to any relief on this ground also.

08. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no merit in this petition,

and the same is dismissed accordingly.

09. Record of the case be returned to the learned ASGI forthwith.

(Sindhu Sharma) Judge JAMMU 10th .09.2021 SUNIL-II Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No

SUNIL KUMAR 2021.09.16 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document