KUMARI PRITI CHOPRA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR M P HASTSHILP VIKAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed this writ petition dated 26-2-1998 after serving its advance copy to respondent No. 1 on 26.2.1998. In the petition, as originally filed, the petitioner stated that she was appointed to the post of sales girl by respondent No. 1 namely M.P. Hastshilp Vikas Nigam Ltd, on 2.8.1994 initially for a period of six months on monthly salary of Rs. 2000.00 on the condition that if the work of the petitioner was found satisfactory the period of service will be extended on the basis of the recommendations. She continued in service beyond six months. However, she was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 2,000.00 whereas the other workmen were paid the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-25-1400. Accordingly on 12.2.1997 she made representation for increasing her salary which was followed by reminders dated 30th April, 1997, 30th July, 1997, 7th January, 1998 and 29th January, 1998. However, the respondent did not pay need to any of her request and accordingly this petition was filed seeking directions against the respondent to give the petitioner pay scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-25-1400 with other allowances including medical allowances to the petitioner on the basis of "equal pay for equal work" as per rules and regulations of the respondent at part with other sales men. It was also prayed that writ of prohibition or directions may be issued restraining the respondent from terminating the services of the petitioner. The petition came up for hearing on 2nd March, 1998 when notice in the civil writ was issued. The petitioner had also filed CW No. 1664/98 seeking interim directions to the effect that respondent be restrained from terminating her services and also directions to release the salary of the petitioner for the month of December, 1997, January, 1998 and February, 1998. Notice was issued in this application also returnable on 10th March, 1998.

(2.) The respondent filed counter-affidavit dated 10th March, 1998 in which it was inter alia stated that the order dated 26th February, 1998 was passed as per which the petitioner was relieved from services on 26th February, 1998. Accordingly on 30th March, 1998 the petitioner was given permission to file appropriate application amending the writ petition challenging the termination order also. The petitioner filed application (CM No. 3341/98) for amendment of the writ petition which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 1.5.1998. The petitioner filed amended writ petitioner to which reply affidavit was filed by the respondent and the petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit to the said reply. The matter came up for arguments thereafter on 25th August, 1998 when counsel for the petitioner contended that persons junior to the petitioner have been allowed to be retained by the respondent in their organization while the petitioner's service have been terminated after the petitioner filed this writ petition. The respondent was accordingly directed to file affidavit stating as to whether any person who was junior to the petitioner still working with the respondent or not. Pursuant to this order affidavit dated 8th September, 1998 was filed by the respondent. The matter was thereafter argued on 28.10.1998. It was contended by the petitioner that one Mr. Yogesh Nayyar who was junior to the petitioner was retained in service while terminating the service of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court directed the respondent to produce the record on the next date of hearing. It was also directed that letter of appointment of Mr. Yogesh Nayyar be also brought on record. The respondent produced the record which was perused by the Court on 15.12.1998 and 2.2.1999 and this Court passed the following orders on these dates:-

(3.) The respondents have filed another affidavit dated 26th March, 1999 in which it is mentioned that as per the directions of the Court on 15-12.1998 the Corporation sent appointment order dated 1-2-99 to the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondent-corporation has not opened any counter in Tamil Nadu Emporium in Delhi and there is no proposal to create any post in Delhi. It is further stated that the respondent-corporation has no vacancy in their Noida office.