CWP (T) No.11185 of 2008. 24.11.2009. Present: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Petitioner was appointed as part time Sweepress in School/Home for deaf and dumb children, Dhalli on the fixed honorarium of Rs.1030/- per month for 89 days w.e.f 24.3.1999 vide Annexure A-1. She was again appointed as Sweepress vide Annexure A-2 on the fixed honorarium of Rs.2000/- per month for 89 days. The respondents had been re-engaging the petitioner after giving artificial break of one day. Mr. P.P. Chauhan has strenuously argued that the action of the respondents of giving artificial breaks to the petitioner after every 89 days is against the settled principles of law. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel have argued that the fictional breaks are given to the petitioner and similarly situate persons for the simple reason that the Government of India issues sanction for each post at the fag end of every year and in these circumstances the appointment is either given for 89 days or on contract basis for the last five years. They then contended that the petitioner and similarly situate persons are engaged after giving them 2-3 days break to avoid permanent liability to pay salary to them. We have heard the learned the counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. The practice adopted by the respondents of giving artificial breaks to the petitioner and similarly situate persons is against the settled law. Rather it amounts to unfair labour practice. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another vs. Director General of Police, Assam and others, (2009) 6 SCC 611 have held as under: “18. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and reappointment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, coterminous with the Scheme. The Circular dated 17.3.1995 directing artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be quashed.” (emphasis supplied) Consequently, we are of the view that the respondents cannot give artificial breaks to the petitioner and other similarly situate persons to avoid their financial liability. The explanation given by the respondents in the reply for giving artificial breaks is not acceptable. Accordingly, the respondents are directed not to give artificial breaks to the petitioner and other similarly situate persons in view of the law declared by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as cited above. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of. (R.B. Misra), ACJ. 24th November, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. (tr)