Pradeep Lal vs Union Of India Thr. Joint ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 2505 Del

                                                         UNREPORTABLE


*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                           WP (C) No.3093/2011


                                         Date of Decision: May 10, 2011


      PRADEEP LAL                               ..... Petitioner
                           through petitioner in person.

                      versus


      UNION OF INDIA THR. JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF STEEL
                                              ..... Respondent
                      through Ms. Sweety Manchanda, Advocate
                      with Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate

      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 petitioner vide letter dated August 05, 2008 was

appointed to the post of Manager (Training & Capacity Building) on

a project on "Energy Efficiency Improvement in Steel Rerolling Mill

(SRRM) Sector". It was a condition of his employment that he shall

remain on probation for a period of six months and that his

confirmation will be subject to the satisfactory performance during

WP (C) No.3093/2011 Page 1 the probation period. The details with regard to the project and the

manner, in which the services of an employee in relation to that

project can be terminated, are contained in "Project Operations

Manual".

It appears that the respondent did not find the performance of

the petitioner up to the mark and hence, vide communication dated

December 31, 2008, he was informed that, "your employment with

us as Expert (Training & Capacity Building) is not confirmed and is

discontinued with effect from 1st January, 2009." He was further

informed that the job to which he was appointed "has been the most

demanding one, resulting in timely completion of

output/deliverables. However, your contributions were nowhere

close to the targets........ Your performance did not reflect your

expertise in the assignment given to you." However, he was given

one month‟s salary in lieu of the notice period.

Aggrieved by the order of his termination, the petitioner says

that, initially he made representations to the concerned authorities

and when he did not receive a favourable response from them, he

moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, but to no avail. The

Tribunal by order dated February 17, 2010 dismissed his petition.

Thereafter, he says that, he went to the Department of Public

Grievances and when he did not receive a favourable response from

there as well, he has filed the present writ-petition challenging

discontinuation of his service contract.

WP (C) No.3093/2011 Page 2 On hearing the petitioner and the learned counsel for the

respondent, I feel that the writ-petition has no merit. It is clear from

the letter of appointment of the petitioner dated August 05, 2008

that his initial appointment was for a period of six months and he

was entitled to confirmation only on his satisfactory performance

during the probation period. Also, as per Clause 6.9 of the "Project

Operations Manual", his services could be terminated at any time by

giving him one month‟s notice or by paying him salary in lieu of the

notice period. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was on

probation for a period of six months and in view of Clause 6.9 of the

"Project Operations Manual" which gave the Appointing Authority

the right to terminate his contract at any time by giving him one

month‟s notice, I find no infirmity in the order dated

August 31, 2008 discontinuing his service contract during the

probation period.

It is contended by the petitioner that even though he was on

probation, the respondent was supposed to observe the principles of

natural justice and ought to have given him show-cause notice

before discontinuing his service contract. I do not agree. While on

probation, the petitioner was entitled to no such notice.

I am also of the view that the writ-petition has been filed

belatedly. The service of the petitioner was terminated on

December 31, 2008 but he has chosen to come to this Court almost

WP (C) No.3093/2011 Page 3 three years thereafter and more than two years after the Central

Administrative Tribunal had dismissed his petition.

For the fore-going reasons, I find no merit in the writ-petition.

The same is dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

MAY 10, 2011
ka




WP (C) No.3093/2011                                               Page 4