The decision to treat the intervening period as 'dies-non' was arbitrary and violated natural justice due to the absence of a show cause notice.

ORDER

By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

By means of the instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant has prayed for setting aside the orders dated 06.01.2000 (Annexure A-18) and 21.06.2012 (Annexure A-17). Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to pay her annual increment for the year 18.09.1998 and 18.09.1999 after considering applicant’s initial appointment order dated 26/27.08.1997.

2. The applicant, was initially appointed to the post of PGT (English) vide order dated 26/27.08.97 with probation for a period of two years, was terminated from service pursuant to proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 vide order dated 25.06.1999 (Annexure A-2). Thereafter, she filed a writ petition No. 108(SH)/1999 before the Hon'ble High Court Guwahati where status quo for 10 days starting from 27.07.1999 was granted but the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya struck off her name from the roll of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, William Nagar, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya State. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed appeal before the Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya on 25.8.1999 followed by reminder on 6.12.1999 but having received no response, she filed O.A. 233/1999 before Gauhati Bench of this Tribunal which was allowed and the applicant was re-instated in service by order dated 06.01.2000 (Annexure A-8) treating the intervening period from the date of termination to the date of rejoining as ‘dies-non’ and in compliance thereto, she joined at JNV Madhepura. The applicant contended that after her reinstatement, the respondents granted her annual increment in the pay scale Rs. 6500-200-10500 since 01.02.2001. The applicant also preferred representations dated 24.10.2009 and 15.12.2010 for redressal of her grievance but by letter dated 22.06.2012 (Annexure A-17) her request was not acceded to.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the action of the respondents in treating the intervening period after her reinstatement as ‘dies-non’ is illegal and arbitrary as the termination order was quashed and set-aside by the Tribunal and in compliance thereto, she was re-instated in service by order dated 06.01.2000, hence she is entitled to restore her service from the date of initial appointment i.e. 26/27.08.1997 and her first increment should be counted since 18.09.1998 and second increment should be counted since 18.09.1999. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the action of the respondents is also against the principles of natural justice as the respondents did not provided opportunity of hearing or to show cause before treating the intervening period as ‘dies-non’. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the OA may be allowed and the applicant may be granted reliefs.

4. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicant and filed reply stating that as per the terms and conditions of the appointment, her services were terminated by the appointing authority vide dated 25.06.1999 during the currency of the initial period of 02 years tenure as per the provisions of Rule 5(i) of CCS (Temporary) Service Rules, 1965. Copy of the same is filed herewith as ANNEXURE R-2. That upon termination of her services, she was relieved from the services of the Samiti on 27.07.1999. The respondents further contended that the order dated 25.06.1999 was not set aside by the Tribunal but the OA No. 233/1999 was disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file representation before the competent authority and in compliance thereto, the representation of the applicant dated 20.08.1999 was considered and decided by the competent authority vide order dated 06.01.2000 reinstating her in service and intervening period from the date of termination to the date of rejoining under has been decided to be treated as ‘dies-non’ .

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the OA No. 233/1999 filed by the applicant was n