- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner/appellant has preferred this Special Appeal against order dated 11th October, 2011, whereby her S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8106/2006 was disposed of by modifying the order dated 7th December, 2005 (Annex.5) and also against order of Single Bench dated 9th November, 2011, whereby S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 361/2011 was dismissed. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner's earlier writ petition No. 2593/2003 was allowed by Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 25th August, 2005 and respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and in pursuance of the said order, the respondents passed an order dated 7th December, 2005, whereby petitioner has been appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from the date of joining on the duty. He has submitted that although the order dated 7th December, 2005 (Annex.5) has been passed on the basis of recommendation of Screening Committee constituted for regularization of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), but from the order, it appears that appointment of the petitioner is a fresh appointment, whereas regularization of petitioner should have been made from the date of her initial appointment. He, therefore, submitted that a review petition was filed, but learned Single Judge wrongly dismissed the writ petition as well as review petition filed by petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents defended / supported the impugned orders passed by Single Judge and prayed for dismissal of Special Appeal. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders passed by Single Bench, the impugned order of writ petition dated 7th December, 2005, earlier order of Single Bench dated 25th August, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 2593/2003. There is no dispute between the parties that petitioner was initially appointed on daily rate basis. The services of the petitioner were terminated, but the same was declared illegal by Labour Court and she was reinstated with continuity of service as per award of the Labour Court. Petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition for regularization of her services and this Court decided earlier S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2593/2003 of petitioner vide order dated 25th August, 2005. The operative portion of the order dated 25th August, 2005 is reproduced as under :- "Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Junior Engineer and in case the age of the petitioner, as on the present time, comes in the way, then the age relaxation may be ordered. No order as to costs."
(3.) THE Single Bench, after considering the above direction of Single Bench of this Court, came to a conclusion that a direction was given to consider the case of petitioner for regularization on the post of Junior Engineer and in case age of the petitioner comes in her way then to grant age relaxation. THEreafter, case of petitioner was considered and while granting age relaxation, a recommendation was made in her favour for regularization of her service and consequently the order dated 7th December, 2005 was passed. THE Single Bench, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, modified the order dated 7th December, 2005 to the extent that it should be treated to be regularization of petitioner's services on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) from the date of issuance of the order dated 7th December, 2005 instead of treating it to be case of fresh appointment. As per modify order, the petitioner has been entitled for treating her services to be continuous. THE matter was again examined, while deciding review petition by Single Bench. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that orders passed by Single Bench are absolutely legal and justified and are in accordance with the earlier direction of Single Bench dated 25th August, 2005 passed in petitioner's earlier writ petition No.2593/2003. We find no merit in this Special Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. ;