IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4313 of 1991 Date of decision: April 28, 2011 Poonam Kapoor .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Parshad, DAG, Haryana. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22.12.1990 (Annexure P6) passed by the Director Higher Education, and to release the salary of the petitioner for the period from 1.4.1989 to 25.8.1989. In this case, Suman Kanta Gulati, who was working as lecturer Hindi, in IB College, Panipat, proceeded on leave for one year w.e.f. 16.9.1989 to 15.9.1989. Thereafter, a post was advertised vide annexure P1 and interview as conducted on 5.11.1988 and the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 12.11.1988 for working on leave vacancy purely on temporary basis up to 31.3.1989 with the condition that if the permanent incumbent joins prior to this date then her services would stand terminated on that date. Before the expiry of the period of service, the petitioner filed a civil writ petition No.4515 of 1989, over which order, annexure P3 was passed which reads as under :- “Notice of motion for May 22, 1989. In the meantime the petitioner's services be not terminated.” Pursuant to the order, she continued in service. However, vide order dated 16.8.1989, her writ petition was dismissed and she stood automatically relieved However, she claimed the salary w.e.f. 1.4.1989 to 25.8.1989. During reply, the respondents submitted that the bill submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the Deputy Director, College-II, Civil Writ Petition No. 4313 of 1991 -2- *** Directorate of Higher Education, Haryana, Chandigarh. Vide annexure P6 dated 22.12.1990, the petitioner was informed that since her services have been terminated, therefore, she could not claim her salary. Heard. The appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual w.e.f. 1.4.1989 to 25.8.1989. Thereafter, neither she was given fresh appointment nor her tenure was extended. However, she continued working on the said post at her own risk and costs during the pendency of the writ petition, which was ultimately dismissed on 16.8.1989. Thus, she was not entitled for the salary for the period during which she worked at her own risk and costs. Dismissed. April 28, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge