The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1849 of 2021 Dhananjay Kumar Singh … Petitioner V E R S U S 1. State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Dhurwa, Ranchi 4. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, JSBCCL Building, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 5. The Executive Director, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, JSBCCL Building, Project Bhawan Campus, Dhurwa, Ranchi 6. The General Manager (Administration) – cum – deputy general Manager (Finance), Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, JSBCCL Building, Project Bhawan Campus, Ranchi 7. The Deputy General Manager (Administration), Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, JSBCCL Building, Project Bhawan Campus, Dhurwa, Ranchi 8. The Manager (Administration), Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, JSBCCL Building, Project Bhawan Campus, Dhurwa, Ranchi 9. The Manager (Technical) – cum – Manager, PIU, Khunti, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, JSBCCL Building, Project Bhawan Campus, Dhurwa, Ranchi … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner :Ms. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate Ms. Neeharika Roy, Advocate For the Respondents Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I For the JSBCCL Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, Advocate 06/07.08.2023 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order of termination issued by respondent no. 6, vide Office Order No. 10, letter no. 563, Dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure-12) and for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him into the service. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay him difference of amount of salary which accrued on account of 10% annual increment from the date of appointment till date as per rules and regulation of the Corporation passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay him compensation. Further prayer has been made restraining the respondents from acting pursuant to Recruitment Notice No. 01/2020 – 21, issued vide letter no. 570, dated 22.03.2021. RC 2 3. It is case of the petitioner that pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2017 – 18, applications were invited by the Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited for recruitment to the post of Chief Accounts Officer. Petitioner being a qualified Chartered Accountant and fulfilling requisite criteria, applied for the same and after due process of selection, he was selected and appointment letter was issued to him vide letter dated 12.02.2018. Thereafter, petitioner joined the service on 23.02.2018. It is specific case of the petitioner that after working for three years, one fine morning an order of termination was issued on 19.03.2021 on the ground that working of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. 4. Ms. Jasvinder Mazumdar assisted by Ms. Neeharika Roy, learned
Decision
counsel vociferously argues that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law on the ground that without adhering to the cardinal principles of natural justice, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel further argues that though petitioner was appointed for a period of three years, just four days before completion of his tenure, he has been terminated. Learned counsel further argues that the order of termination puts stigma on the petitioner and as such without a regular departmental proceeding, the said order ought not have been passed. It has also been brought to the notice that the order of termination based on the agreement is also not tenable as the agreement itself was for a period of eleven months. After completion of eleven months, the said agreement has no legal sanctity. The learned counsel emphatically argues that the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside and a direction may be given to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel representing the respondents - JSBCCL vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned order is fully justified. The appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis. The tenure of contract had come to an end. Twice petitioner was noticed. It cannot be said that without adhering to principles of natural justice, the impugned order has been passed. From the records itself it appears that twice petitioner was noticed and petitioner had replied to the same and as such contention of the petitioner has already been considered. Further it has been argued that the petitioner has been terminated in view of agreement itself. Referring to clause 6 of the agreement, learned counsel submits that as per the agreement, petitioner has been terminated and there is no illegality or any infirmity in the RC 3 impugned order. The writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. Having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Admittedly the appointment of the petitioner was based on contract. The contract was for a period of three years only and the same was never given any extension at any point of time. Even the cardinal principles of natural justice was duly followed. Petitioner was twice noticed. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that without adhering to the cardinal principles of natural justice, the impugned order has been passed, is not accepted to this Court. Petitioner has been terminated after following the terms and conditions of the agreement and clause-6 of the agreement is very clear. From the impugned order also it does not transpires that the impugned order casts any stigma on the petitioner and as such contention of the petitioner that it will affect his future prospects, is not acceptable. The impugned order does not cast any stigma upon the petitioner. The tenure has already been completed and hence nothing remains to be interfered with. The agreement which has been brought on record duly clarifies everything regarding appointment on contract. The employer is at liberty to disengage or even terminate services of an employee working on contractual basis if the work is not found satisfactory. It is the petitioner who has accepted terms and conditions of the agreement and thus it is not open to him to turn back and challenge the said agreement. 7. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncement, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted. Consequently, this writ petition stands dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC