CWP-4937-2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4937-2002 (O&M) SANEH LATA ..Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ..Respondents Reserved on: 23.07.2026 Pronounced on : 27.07.2026 Uploaded on : 27.07.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G. Haryana. * * * * * SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the respondents to count the period of service during which period the petitioner was forced to remain out of job because of the fault of respondents itself and further issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the respondents to grant all the increments with all consequential benefits of the period of break which was because of the fault on the part of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was forced to remain out of job because of fault of respondents, therefore, he is MOHD AYUB 2026.07.27 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-4937-2002 (O&M) -2- entitled to grant of all increments as well as consequential benefits. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the case of the petitioner was sympathetically considered and she was again/afresh given appointment on contract basis as Sanskrit teacher in Government Girls Secondary School, Sirsa on 07.04.2000. He further contends that there is nothing in the fresh engagement letter regarding continuity of the engagement. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole case file with their able assistance. 5. A perusal of the file shows that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis on 30.09.1997 on 89 days on certain terms and conditions. The terms and conditions are reproduced as under:- “1. This offer of appointment is purely contractual for a limited period of 89 days and the same will stand automatically terminated on A.N. of 89 days or on joining a regular hand whichever is earlier. 2. That the contract can also be terminated at any time during the tenure without notice and without assigning any reason. 3. That you will not have any claim for continuation of service after the expiry of the contractual period. 4. No TA/DA will be paid to you for joining this post. 5. You will hate to stay at the place of posting.” MOHD AYUB 2026.07.27 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-4937-2002 (O&M) -3- 6. A perusal of the above referred to engagement letter shows that it is specifically written in the terms and conditions that the contract can be terminated at any time without notice. 7. Further perusal of the file shows that she continued till 1998 and vide order dated 06.05.1998 she was terminated. She preferred writ petition before this Court challenging termination order dated 06.05.1998 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.01.2000 without going into the merits of the case with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on legal notice filed by the petitioner by passing a speaking order. Vide order dated 07.04.2000 which is passed in compliance of directions issued by Division Bench of this Court, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner sympathetically and again gave fresh engagement/appointment on contract basis as Sanskrit teacher to the petitioner. 8. There is nothing on record to show that there is any direction by the Division Bench of this Court to take into consideration the previous period for consequential benefits and nothing to show that the respondents even considered the same while engaging the petitioner afresh. 9. In view of the same, the present writ petition is dismissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 27.07.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2026.07.27 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.