JUDGMENT M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.
1. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is a bonded lady doctor appointed under a scheme of the U. P. Government. She has filed this writ petition seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the benefit of continuity of her service for the period 12.8.1973 to 26.1.1975 and to grant her all consequential service benefits including seniority, etc.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a bonded lady doctor under the Scheme of the U. P. Government on 12.8.1973, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, and this bonded period was extended for another one year vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
4. During the time when the petitioner was serving as a bonded lady doctor with the respondents, the State Government permitted all the bonded lady doctors to apply for appointment under the Provincial Medical Health Service/P.M.S.W., which required inter-alia, 19 lady physicians. Copy of the letter dated 13.11.1973 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted her application to the Chief Medical Officer, Fatehpur. He forwarded her application to respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 23.11.1973, Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The Government took decision that the period of extension granted to the bonded doctors should be recalled and vide its order dated 10.10.1974, all the concerned departments, who had hired the services of bonded doctors, were directed to communicate to all the bonded doctors that their services will come to an end immediately, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner was also directed to hand over charge of bonded doctor ,
5. The petitioner, who had already applied for the Provincial Medical Health Services, was selected in the said service and the appointment letter issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 is Annexure-6 to the writ petition and thereafter her services were regularised in the Provincial Medical Health Services.
6. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the Deputy Secretary to the State Government wrote a letter to respondent No. 1 on 18.7.1980, stating that the period of service rendered by the bonded doctors who have subsequently been provided service under P.M.H.S., will be given the benefit of the service for fixation of pay. The petitioner submitted her pay fixation application vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition. However, she has not been given the benefit of her service rendered as a bonded doctor for the period 12.8.1973 to 26.1.1975.
7. In our opinion, the petitioner should be given the benefit of service for the aforesaid period in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and Anr. v. Indra Pratap Singh, 1992 SC 780". In paragraphs 9 and 15 of the aforesaid case, the Apex Court held :' "What is relevant is not the length of the interval or break, as it may be called, but its nature. We do not mean to say that length of such interval is totally irrelevant; what we mean, however, is that one must take into consideration the reason for which break or the circumstances in which such break has occurred."
8. In our opinion, since the petitioner has been given the benefit of past service for pay fixation hence she has also to get the benefit of service rendered from 12.8.1973 to 26.1.1975 and she should be deemed to have continued in service during this period.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.