- (1.) Vide this order four Civil Revision Nos. 1334, 1358, 1359 and L360 of 1990 are being disposed of as facts are mostly common resulting in similar orders. The facts are taken from Civil Revision No. 1334 of 1990 (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Sarita, 1992 1 SCT 610).
(2.) Smt. Sarita was temporarily appointed as Assistant on February 17, 1989 for a period of thirty days. Thereafter, this period was extended by another thirty days on March 21, 1989 and again extended by twenty days on April 21, 1989. Apprehending that her services would be terminated, she filed suit for perpetual injunction restraining the Corporation from terminating her services. She also filed Misc. Application for grant of ad interm injunction. The trial Court on May 2, 1989 granted ad interim injunction. However, the Corporation filed an appeal and obtained an order staying operation of the order of the trial Court on May 4, 1989. On that very day, the Corporation terminated the services of the plaintiff. Ultimately, on August 16, 1989, the Lower Appellate Court observed that the trial Court should decide the matter of interim relief after hearing both the parties, as earlier the trial Court had allowed ad interim injunction ex parte. When the matter went before the trial Court, another application was filed by the plaintiff for grant of mandatory injunction directing the Corporation to take her into service. As already observed above, her services were terminated on May 4, 1989. The trial Court granted the mandatory injunction, which order was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. Hence revision by the defendant Life Insurance Corporation of India.
(3.) The appointment order has been read. The initial appointment was for a period of thirty days with further condition that if regular appointment is made in the meantime without notice her services could be terminated. This condition was repeated in the subsequent two orders while extending the period of service by thirty and twenty days respectively. The question for consideration is as to whether there is any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. As per terms of the appointment letter, the services of the plaintiff was purely temporary for a fixed period and even if during the said period regular recruited employee was available, her services could be terminated without any notice. In the case of temporary employment for a fixed period as above, there was no question of any prima facie case existing in favour of the plaintiff to claim any right to the post.;