K.KANNAN J. - (1.) THE writ petition seeks for a mandamus to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's salary for the academic session 1990 -1991 and for the vacation period of the year 1991. The principal prayer in the writ petition, however, is to quash the termination order and for reinstatement which I would hold as not tenable at this length of time, for admittedly she has taken up employment elsewhere and her own appointment initially with the permission of the University was only to work as a temporary Lecturer. I will, therefore, take up the issue for consideration only as regards her claim to salary for the period which she claims she worked.
(2.) IT is admitted case that she was appointed as Lecturer in Economics on temporary basis w.e.f. 12.08.1989 upto 31.03.1990. Her contention is that she continued beyond 31.03.1990 as well, for it would be evident from the letter of the Principal to the University that she had sought for extension of approval for temporary appointment from 01.08.1990 to 31.3.1991 till regular appointment was made whichever was earlier. While the petitioner would contend that she continued in employment till she was wrongly terminated from service that resulted in filing of writ petition in CWP No.3535 of 1991 before this Court to direct the respondent to grant approval and regularize her services and to restrain the respondents from terminating the service of the petitioner till the grant of approval. The case had been decided on 06.03.1991 by the Court allowing for the Assistant Registrar, Colleges to consider the plea for regularization of the petitioner as Lecturer and that DPI should decide the matter within one month. The order stated "....it will be open to the college to keep the petitioner or not. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly." To a contention by the petitioner that she was working till 31.03.1991, the response by the College is that she worked only upto 15.03.1990 and her services were terminated by office order dated 12.03.1990. She did not continue in appointment subsequently and it was also not possible for the college to provide for regularization without sanction of the University since the University had directed fresh advertisement to be issued and there was a specific direction also from the University on 17.12.1990 that the petitioner must be relieved because the post was temporary and that further the University had directed the College to advertise the post afresh and fill it up on permanent basis, the petitioner had not been retained any longer.
(3.) SINCE issue of whether the petitioner was working upto March 1991 as asserted by the petitioner was purely an issue of fact when the college was denying the petitioner to such a status, this Court had earlier called upon the Principal to give an affidavit setting out the details of employment upon which a short affidavit of Dr. Sahib Singh has been filed on 16.09.2013. It is stated in the said affidavit that the petitioner was not paid salary upto 28.02.1990 and there were no records available for the payment upto March 15, 1990. The new session started in August, 1990 and there was no record to show that she worked but in one letter written by the then principal, it was mentioned that she had worked upto 22.12.1990.;