Sunil Kumar & Ors vs Govt. Of N.C.T.Of Delhi & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 2091 Del

                                                        UNREPORTABLE


*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                           WP (C) No.2454/2011


                                         Date of Decision: April 19, 2011


       SUNIL KUMAR & ORS                     ..... Petitioners
                      through Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Advocate

                      versus

       GOVT. OF N.C.T.OF DELHI & ORS          ..... Respondents
                       through Ms. Ferida Satarawala, Advocate for
                       respondent No.1.
                       Ms. Aanchal Yadav, Advocate for
                       Mr. P.C.Sen, Advocate for respondent No.3.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
       the judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners were appointed as Pharmacists by respondent

No.2 vide identical appointment letters dated July 14, 2008. A

sample copy of the appointment letter has been placed on the

record as Annexure „A‟. On February 28, 2011 the petitioners along

with 18 others were given one month‟s notice and thereby they

were informed that their services will be terminated w.e.f.

WP (C) No.2454/2011 Page 1 March 31, 2011. It is this letter of February 28, 2011 which the

petitioners have assailed before me.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that

inspite of the fact that there are vacancies of Pharmacists,

respondent No.2 without any cogent reason has done away with the

services of the petitioners.

On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for

respondent No.1 who is present on advance service that no

vacancies of Pharmacists are available and in any case, in terms of

the appointment letters of the petitioners, they have no right to the

posts. Reference in this regard has been made to Clauses-1 & 9 of

the appointment letters. The said clauses read as under:-

"x x x x x

1. The appointment is purely contractual & for a period of Eleven months initially. The tenure of the assignment may be extended further after 11 months subject to satisfactory performance of the duties & conduct during the period but the integrated District Health Society, New Delhi District is not obliged in any way to regularize your appointment against the post and may be terminated even when regular post is vacant.

x x x x x

9. The Society reserves the right to terminate the contract to the post without assigning any reason after giving a month‟s advance notice. Similarly, you shall have to give a Notice of one month before you may decide to resign from the post or deposit a month‟s salary in lieu of the same."

WP (C) No.2454/2011 Page 2 It is apparent from the aforementioned clauses of the

appointment letter that the appointments of the petitioners were

purely contractual and their services could be terminated even if a

regular post was vacant. As per Clause-9, respondent No.2 was not

obliged to give any reason to the petitioners before terminating

their services. It was only required to give one month‟s advance

notice which, as noticed above, it did give.

For what has been noticed above, I find no merit in the

writ-petition. The same is dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

APRIL 19, 2011
ka




WP (C) No.2454/2011                                              Page 3