Manisha Mehta W/O Shri Ramniwas ... vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7324 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11323/2021
          S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.10826/2021

Manisha Mehta W/o Shri Ramniwas Mehta
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited & Ors.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Ms. Malti For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

07/12/2021 None appears for the respondents despite service. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Admit.

Issue notice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on interim relief. Drawing attention of this Court towards the various appointment orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner possessing all the requisite eligibility is working as a Teacher with the respondents since 01.07.2015 and nature of her job is perennial in nature but, to create artificial break, earlier, she was being given yearly appointment which, now has been reduced to be a period of 89 days. He submits that in all, the petitioner has rendered more than 6 years of service with the respondents. Relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Shri Rabinarayan Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and Ors., AIR 1991 SC 1286 and a judgment of a Hon'ble Himanchal Pradesh High Court in case of Dharmender Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Others, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5380/2014 decided on 03.05.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the job is perennial in nature, a

(2 of 2) [CW-11323/2021]

person, though appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis, is entitled for regularization and regular pay scale. He submits that in view thereof, the respondents may be restrained not to terminate her services during the pendency of the writ petition.

Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material on record and the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as also of the Hon'ble Himanchal Pradesh High Court, this Court deems it just and proper to restrain the respondents from terminating services of the petitioner till further orders.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/33

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)