SANJEEV KUMAR
Bina Devi – Appellant
Versus
National Hydroelectric Project – Respondent
1. The petitioner is aggrieved and challenges Order of respondent No.2 bearing No. NH/SHEP/P&A/RWE/PF/ 2001/4089-99 dated 21.06.2001 whereby, the services of the petitioner have been terminated w.e.f. 02.04.2001.
2. Before adverting to the grounds on which the order impugned has been assailed, it would be apposite to refer to the brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to the passing of the order impugned by respondent no.4.
3. Pursuant to the selection process conducted by respondent No.1, the petitioner came to be appointed as Auxiliary Nurse- Mid-Wife in terms of the order issued by the Personnel and Admn Wing Salal H.E. Project, Jyotipuram (J&K) vide its order No. PNA/Induction/99/5024 dated 09.07.1999. Apart from the other terms and conditions, in terms of the condition No.1.9, the petitioner on her appointment was put on probation for a period of one year which, however, was further extendable if was found necessary. In the aforesaid condition, it was further provided that during the probation period, the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason therefor. It was also provided that the services of the pet
Dipti Prakash Banerjeee V. Satyendra Nath Bose
Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar and others
Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi
Parshotam Lal Dhingra. Union of India
Basant Kumar Sarkar and Others v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd
State Bank of India v. Palak Modi and others (2013) 3 SCC 607.(Para 13) – Relied
Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.