IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.377 of 2010 (S/S) Smt. Sateshwari Devi ………..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …….Respondents Shri Shivanand Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.S. Rawal, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Dated: 29th October, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 23.02.2010 by which services of the petitioner have been terminated. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Ward Sahayika on the terms and conditions on which she was working or in alternate the respondents be directed that as and when the work is available on contract basis, the petitioner be given preference to be engaged with the respondents. 3. The petitioner was engaged as a Ward Sahayika in the hospital at Joshimath on 05.10.1995 on contractual basis. The petitioner has rendered a service of about 14 years with the respondents on ad-hoc basis. In the month of January, 2010, the petitioner 2 moved a representation to the authorities concerned to regularize her services in the respondent hospital. The authority concerned informed the petitioner that her services cannot be regularized in the Department as per rules. Suddenly, on 23.02.2010, the petitioner received an order dated 23.02.2010, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is 40 years of age and was working with the respondent establishment since last 15 years. But on account of her dismissal she is facing financial crises, as she is jobless, therefore, the petitioner be permitted to file a fresh representation raising her grievances to the authority concerned and the authority concerned may be directed to decide the same, sympathetically as expeditiously as possible. It is further submitted that no appointment on the post of the petitioner has yet been made by the respondents either on regular basis or on contractual basis and the post is still available with the respondents and the petitioner can easily be given work which she was performing earlier. 4. The prayer being innocuous, is not opposed by the Standing Counsel for the Union of India. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the authority concerned raising all her grievances within a period of four weeks from today and if petitioner files such representation in time, the respondents are directed to take decision on her representation sympathetically, within a period of three months from the date of filing of representation alongwith the certified copy of the order. In case representation of the petitioner is rejected, the concerned authority is required to give reasoned order. 6. Interim Relief application (CLMA No.3912 of 2010), Misc. application (I.A. No.3305 of 2010), and Urgency application (I.A. No.3985 of 2010) stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 29.10.2010