KAMLESH BHASIN Vs. FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who was non suited by the concurrent verdicts of the Courts below has preferred the present Second Appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff has alleged that she was appointed as a receptionist. The 1st defendant used to change the duties of the plaintiff with the duties of the 2nd defendant from time to time. The plaintiff's service as Clerk was regularised on 1.3.1979. The 2nd defendant was upgraded to the post of technical Assistant/telephone-cum-receptionist and was awarded the benefit for the period from 1.3.1978 to 31.3.1979 in the pre revised scales. The plaintiff was ordered to work as a receptionist exclusively upto 9.1.1985. The plaintiff contends that the order passed by the 1stdefendat promoting the 2nd defendant to the post of technical Assistant/telephone-cum-receptionist was null and void. The plaintiff also claimed the benefits and arrears for the period from 1976 to 11.3.1980 as she worked jointly with the 2nd defendant as receptionist.

(3.) It is the contention of the 1st defendant that the plaintiff was appointed as substitute receptionist in the leave vacancy of Smt. Asha Kapoor from 6.11.1975 to 16.1.1976 and thereafter her services were terminated. The plaintiff was again appointed as a Clerk in the leave vacancy of Smt. Gaumti for a period of two months from 19.1.1976 to 18.3.1976. The plaintiff was again appointed as Diary and Dispatch Clerk on adhoc basis. On 23.7.1976 the service of the plaintiff was terminated. The plaintiff was again appointed as a Clerk on adhoc basis for a period of three months and thereafter her adhoc appointment was extended from time to time upto 28.2.1979. The plaintiff was asked to perform the duties of telephone operator as and when the 2nd defendant proceed on leave. The plaintiff was granted extra allowance of Rs.15 per month for assisting the telephone operator during lunch hours. The plaintiff was appointed as a Clerk on probation for a period of two years from 1.3.1979. The 2nd defendant was promoted to the post of Assistant telephone operatorcum- receptionist. The plaintiff was never appointed against the post of telephone operator-cum-receptionist or Assistant telephone operator-cum-receptionist. As the plaintiff never worked in the above post she was not entitled to any allowance.