days in a year was intentional act of the management or not. In case, it is found to be intentional or malafide on the part of management by granting artificial leaves to the workman so that workman does not complete 240 days in a year, then the management cannot take this plea. In case, the break in between is justified then the position is different. Admittedly, the terms of the appointment are mentioned in the appointment letter Ex. WW1/1. The evidence on record reveals that the workman continued with the job on the terms mentioned in the said appointment letter. There is nothing on record, which shows that the management at any point of time has violated the said terms. Neither the workman has alleged that the management has violated the terms or imposed certain new or fresh conditions. Under these circumstances, when there was no change or violations of the terms of the initial appointment, hence, the workman cannot claim two breaks of three months in a service in a year as artificial or camouflage to deprive the workman from completing 240 days. I have carefully gone through the judgment in case Rakesh Singh vs. Delhl Transport Corporation, W(C) No. 3710/2000 relied upon by the workman and it is found that the findings of the said judgment are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Moreover, undisputedly the management is govt. aided school. The management was informed by the Asst. Director, Education vide letter dt. 10.09.04 Ex. MW1/3 that interalia the two posts of part time employee of the management were declared surplus. On the basis of said letter vide letter dt. 10.08.04 the workman was informed by the management that his services were no more required. It transpires that the workman was not shunted out by any policy of the management but was not discontinued from the services as per instructions of the Directorate of Education by letter dt. 10.09.04 Ex. MW1/3. Under these circumstances, when the management has no control over appointing or discharging any employee, hence,
