Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner who was not engaged by the company after September 26th, 2005 is praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to permit her to work in the company and also to pay her salary from September 27th, 2005. Her husband was working in the company as a member of the staff. He died in harness on January 17th, 1995. On June 18th, 1996 she applied for a compassionate appointment. Considering request the company engaged her with effect from August 1st, 1996.
(2.) The engagement was a temporary one and she was to receive consolidated pay of rupees one thousand five hundred only. From time to time the tenure of the engagement was extended and the amount payable was increased. The last extension was given by order dated June 23rd, 2005, which was to remain valid up to September 26th, 2005. It was mentioned in that order that the engagement would be a purely temporary one co-terminus with the project. It is to be noted she had been engaged in the turn-key project division.
(3.) It is contended that since at no point of time the petitioner was intimated by the company that she was engaged on a temporary basis, the company was not empowered or entitled to disengage her after employing her for about nine years. Counsel relies on the Apex Court decision in Union of India & Ors. v. K.P. Tiwari, (2003)9 SCC 129 : [2002(1) SLR 537 (SC)] , and submits that on the facts of the case the company ought not to have disengaged the petitioner.;