- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Petitioner was ap pointed as a temporary Family Welfare Worker (Mid-wife) vide order dated 30-3-1978 by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer. Bahraich and was posted at Primary Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as" P. H. C.) Gilula on 17-4-1978. By order dated 22-11-1982 her service was terminated. Being ag grieved by the ;:aid order she has filed this writ petition.
(2.) RESPONDENTS have filed counter-af fidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply hereto. The sole contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order contains stigma and as such the petitioner's service could not have been terminated without giving her a reasonable opportunity of being heard. On the other hand the learned Standing Coun sel has contended that the petitioner being a temporary employee was not entitled to any opportunity of hearing before termination of her service. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as temporary Family Welfare Worker (Mid-wife) vide order dated 30-3-1978 which contains a con dition that her service is purely temporary which can be terminated at any time without prior notice. The impugned order dated 22-11-1982, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 9 to the counter-affidavit, as translated from Hindi to English, is as under:- "you are informed that you illegally remained absent from duty from 24-7-1981 regarding which the office has sent letters to you from time to lime and has sent the last notice dated 4-11-1982 asking you lo resume duty, but you have failed to do so. Your service is purely temporary. In accord ance with the terms and conditions of your ap pointment order your service is terminated with effect from 24-7-1981 as it is no more required in the Department. SD/
(3.) ALTHOUGH the last paragraph of the impugned order states that the petitioner's service is being terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ap pointment order, but in the first paragraph of the said order it has been mentioned that she illegally remained absent from duty with effect from 24-7-1981 and in spite of several letters and the notice given to her by the Department she did not resume the duty. Whether the statement about illegal ab sence of the petitioner from duty, contained in the impugned order, is or is not stigma, is a question on the answer of which depends the fate of this petition. According to the respondents the petitioner was transferred on 24-7-1981 from P. H. C. Giluia to P. H. C. Chittura in the same district Bahraich and was relieved from P. H. C. Giluia on 24-7-1981, but there after she never joined at her now place of posting and was in fact absconding from duty without any authority or proper leave. As such her service was terminated by the respondent No. 3 by the impugned order. According to the petitioner she was ill from 17-12-1979 to 31-12-1979 and was not per mitted thereafter to join her duties at P. H. C. Giluia and was also not paid her salary for the period from December, 1979 to March, 1980. She thereafter filed a civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Bahraich for recovery of the pay for the aforesaid period. The suit is said to have been decreed. The petitioner claims that it is on account of filing of the suit by her that she was trans ferred from P. H. C. Giluia to P. H. C. Chit tura. It is further stated that the petitioner also filed a writ petition before this Court (Lucknow Bench) challenging her transfer order and when the respondent No. 3 came to know about filing of the said writ petition he passed the impugned order on 22-11-1982. The aforesaid averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition have been disputed by the respondents in their counter- affidavit.;