C.W.P. No. 8376 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8376 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 11, 2011 Ranjana Sehgal w/o Sh. Sanjeet Sehgal .... PETITIONER Vs. The State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner was appointed as Computer Instructor as per the appointment letter dated 01.07.2009 (Annexure P-3) on probation for a period of one year with a further clause for extension of the said period if the situation so warranted. There was a specific stipulation in the appointment letter, as per clause 3 thereof, that if the employee is interested in resigning from the job, one month's notice or in lieu of notice, one month's salary have to be surrendered and similarly, the Managing Committee can also relieve/terminate the services of the employee on one month's notice or in lieu of one month's notice, one month's salary. C.W.P. No. 8376 of 2011 2 It is the contention of the petitioner that her appointment was on regular basis and in support of this contention, the petitioner has relied upon the Medical Fitness Certificate attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-4. It has further been contended that now as the University has enhanced the pay scales, which the management does not want to pay and for this reason, the service of the petitioner is sought to be terminated vide order Annexure P-6. She contends that the action of the respondents is with a mala-fide intention as now the advertisement for filling up the posts of the Computer Instructors on contract basis has been issued in The Tribune dated 11.04.2011 (Annexure P-5). The service of the petitioner is being terminated with an intention to deprive the petitioner the right of her regularization as per her appointment letter. Counsel for the petitioner has also argued on the same lines. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. In the absence of any statutory Rules governing the service of the petitioner, the appointment letter would be the guiding factor and all rights and liabilities would flow from the same. As per the appointment letter dated 01.07.2009 (Annexure P-3), the appointment of the petitioner was in the pay scale of ` 3120/- per month plus allowances as per management norms. The appointment was for a period of one year on probation from the date of joining with a right reserved with the Management to extend the period if the situation so warranted. In case the employee, as per clause 3, is interested in resigning from the job, one month's notice period or in lieu of notice, one month's salary have to be surrendered and similarly, the Managing Committee can also relieve/terminate the service of the employee at one month's notice or in C.W.P. No. 8376 of 2011 3 lieu of one month's notice, one month's salary. The service of the petitioner has been terminated vide Annexure P-6 in terms of the appointment letter and, therefore, the contention, as raised by the petitioner, does not carry any weight especially when the petitioner was not appointed in any pay scale nor is it mentioned that the pay and allowances would be as per the terms of the University Calendar. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) May 11, 2011 JUDGE pj