HASUMATIBEN HARILAL SATHWARA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner was serving as a Peon with respondent no. 2 since 1989. It is the case of the petitioner that she was working since the year 1981 as her mother was over age. Thereafter in the year 1989, the petitioner was retained as a daily wager. However, on 19.12.1993, the petitioner was assigned the duty of a Peon and was paid wages @ Rs,800/-. It is the case of the petitioner that she was called for the interview on 09.01.1992. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.08.1997, without following any procedure, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears from the record that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis and that she had never worked as a Peon at the Branch. Apart from that the mother of the petitioner was a permanent part time employee of the respondent- Bank and she had retired from the service w.e.f. 31.08.1995. However, the petitioner was not give any appointment order and therefore, the petitioner was discontinued from the service orally. Looking to the facts of the case, and in view of the fact that the petitioner was working on ad hoc basis and as per the requirement, no illegality or infirmity is committed by the respondent-authority in terminating the service of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.