C.W.P. No. 1611 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1611 of 2008 Date of decision : 4.2.2008. ... Lakhwinder Kaur ................ petitioner vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Vikram Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner ... K.C. Puri, J. Challenge in this writ petition is to order dated 10.8.2007 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner was appointed as Helper-cum-Typist @ Rs.2,600/- per month for a period of six months from the date of joining at Sikh History Research Board, Amritsar vide order dated 24.7.2000. The services of the petitioner were extended. The petitioner moved an application for regularisation of her services and according to the petitioner, her services were regularised by respondent No.1 on 19.7.2003. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of August, 2003 without any charge sheet C.W.P. No. 1611 of 2008 -2- and enquiry. The petitioner filed CWP No. 13137 of 2003 which was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation made by the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of two months vide order dated 22.8.2003 (Annexure P-4). That order was not complied with and petitioner filed contempt petition and the same was dismissed vide order dated 29.7.2004. The petitioner was again given job of Hindi Typist vide order dated 12.8.2004 on the consolidated salary of Rs.3,500/- per month. The services of the petitioner were again terminated. The petitioner filed CWP No. 1497 of 2005 and on 27.1.2005 (Annexure P-7) the following order was passed:- “A perusal of the prayer clause shows that no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed in our opinion, no cause of action has arisen. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer that he may be granted liberty to file a representation before the respondent. We are of the opinion that no permission is required from this Court for making a representation to the respondent. It is always open to an aggrieved person to approach the authorities for the necessary relief. Disposed of.” The petitioner submitted a legal notice dated 18.3.2006 and again filed CWP No. 7467 of 2007 which was decided on 17.5.2007 and directions were given to the respondents to decide the legal notice of the petitioner by passing as speaking order. C.W.P. No. 1611 of 2008 -3- The respondents vide order dated 10.8.2007 held that the latest order dated 17.5.2007 has been obtained by concealing the previous order dated 27.1.2005 and on merits the claim of Lakhwinder Kaur was declined. Lakhwinder Kaur-petitioner has obtained the order dated 17.5.2007 (Annexure P-9) directing the respondents to decide the representation within two months by concealing the order dated 27.1.2005 (Annexure P-7). An employee who is guilty of concealing the material facts from the Court is not entitled to any relief. Otherwise also, according to the petitioner she was initially appointed for a period of six months and that period of six months was extended on two terms. So, in these circumstances, no legal right has accrued to hold the post by the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) Judge ( Ashutosh Mohunta ) 4.2.2008. Judge chug