Allahabad High Court
Shyam Narayan And 3 Others vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 27 November, 2014
Bench: Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice, Pradeep Kumar Baghel
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 995 of 2014
Appellant :- Shyam Narayan And 3 Others
Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Misra,Prashant Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vaibhav Kaushik, Shesh Mani Misra
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The appellants had moved a writ petition seeking three reliefs (i) the setting aside of an order dated 7 August 2014 by which their services as contractual employees were terminated on 7 August 2014 by the Director of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, the fourth respondent; (ii) the payment of salary for the months of July 2014 and for the period of 1 August to 7 August 2014; (iii) a direction that the appellants be permitted to perform their duties as before in a project of digitization of the IIIT, Allahabad at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment recorded the statement of the respondents that the petitioners-appellants had produced a no objection certificate and consequently directed that the balance of their salary for the previous month together with one month's salary be released to them within 24 hours. The petition was disposed of. The original petitioners are in appeal.
The first grievance which has been raised is that the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the first and the third prayers and has disposed of the petition merely on the basis of the second prayer. Now, the first and the third prayers were interrelated. By the first prayer, the appellants sought the setting aside of an order of termination of their contract, while by the third prayer, they sought a direction to enable them to continue to perform their duties.
The basic issue is as to whether the appellants have a vested right to continue in service. Admittedly, the contract of appointment indicates that the appointment was purely on a temporary basis and of a project mode and could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. The IIIT Allahabad is executing a project of digitization at the High Court and the appellants were all project employees who were appointed purely on a temporary basis. They have no vested right to continue and the contract is terminable without assigning any reason.
In this view of the matter, the appellants being purely temporary employees appointed under a contract of engagement, the learned Single Judge could not have ordered specific performance which is essentially what the writ petition sought. The second submission is that the termination is stigmatic because the letter of termination dated 7 August 2014 states that the performance of the appellants was not found to be satisfactory in the trade test and similarly the appraisal was also unsatisfactory. This appraisal for the purpose of determining whether a contractual employee should be continued any further, cannot result in an order being regarded as a punishment or of a stigmatic nature. Where an employee is engaged for a specified period or for a specified project, the employer is under the terms of the contract entitled to consider whether the continued engagement of the employee is in the interests of the satisfactory completion of the project mode. Such a power is implicit in the very nature of the engagement itself. Consequently, where the employer proceeds to terminate such a contract on the ground that the performance is not satisfactory, the order cannot be regarded as being stigmatic so as to require the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. There is no termination for misconduct in the present case.
The third submission is that the learned Single Judge had in the cause list three other petitions which had been directed to be listed together with the writ petition of the appellants which was dismissed. Moreover, it has been pointed out that on 14 October 2014, the learned Single Judge had directed, in a companion petition the petitioners thereto bring on record no dues certificate.
We see no reason to entertain the submission. The petition filed by the petitioners-appellants was duly heard and has been finally disposed of by the impugned judgment and order. In any event, for the sake of rendering a final and complete adjudication of the issues raised, we have considered all the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the appellants and find no substance in them. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.11.2014
VMA
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.)
(P.K.S. Baghel, J.)
Chief Justice's Court
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 388025 of 2014
In re :
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 995 of 2014
Appellant :- Shyam Narayan And 3 Others
Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Misra,Prashant Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vaibhav Kaushik
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The application seeks condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the appeal.
Since the delay has satisfactorily been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.11.2014
VMA
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.)
(P.K.S. Baghel, J.)
