C.W.P. No.1270 of 1998 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1270 of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: 09.12.2011 Rajni Verma ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mattewal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 22.10.1997, vide which, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier also the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 28.9.1993 and the petitioner approached the Labour Court and Labour Court vide its award dated 15.4.1997 directed the Management to allow the petitioner to join her duties within a period of one month. Learned counsel further contends that the services of the petitioner were again terminated on 22.10.1997 with malafide intention without issuing any notice and without mentioning any reason for termination. The work and conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory and because of this reason, she was allowed to join her duties by the Labour Court vide its award dated 15.4.1997. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the claim C.W.P. No.1270 of 1998 (2) of the petitioner on the ground that as per terms and conditions of appointment, she was appointed for a period of six months or till the regular incumbent joins and subsequently on joining of the regular candidate, her services were terminated. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was well aware with the condition in the appointment letter and only on that basis, her services were terminated. Even in the award of the Labour Court, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till the regular incumbent joins. Learned counsel also submits that subsequently an advertisement was issued on 27.4.1997 and the petitioner was specifically intimated for applying for the post but inspite of that she did not apply for the said post. Heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents available on file. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was conditional as a specific condition was there in the appointment letter that the appointment was for a period of six months or till regular incumbent joins, whichever is earlier. The services of the petitioner were terminated on completion of six months of service, on which, the petitioner approached the Labour Court and Labour Court vide its award dated 15.4.1997 directed the Management to allow the petitioner to join her duties with a condition that she is entitled to continue till the regular incumbent joins. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner were terminated on joining of the regular candidate. The petitioner was well aware with the terms and conditions of the appointment as well as order passed by the Labour Court. Moreover, the petitioner did not apply for the post as per advertisement dated 27.4.1997. As per terms and conditions of the appointment as well as award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was in service and now she has no right to be continued after joining of the regular candidate. There is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and C.W.P. No.1270 of 1998 (3) the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. December 09, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE