- (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Instructor under the Adult and Non- formal Education Scheme on December 16, 1983. On August 1, 1987, the Centre where the petitioner was posted, was ordered to be dosed and consequently, the petitioner's services were terminated. Aggrieved by the termination of her services and claiming that she was entitled to the payment of arrears of salary at the same rate at which these were to be paid in pursuance to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaipal Vs. State of Haryana, 1988 AIR(SC) 1504 she has approached this Court through the present petition.
(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter alia averred that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Instructor vide order dated December 15, 1983 and her services were dispensed with vide order dated September 7, 1987. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure R-2. It has been further averred that the petitioner's services were terminated in strict conformity with the terms of her appointment and that she was not entitled to the grant of any relief whatsoever.
(3.) Mr. P.S. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the claim for issue of a mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner or to regularise her services. He, however, states that the petitioner was entitled to parity of treatment in the matter of pay scales and as such, a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay her the same salary as had been directed to be paid by the Apex Court in Jaipal's case may be issued.;