Delhi High Court
Neelam Dwivedi & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 November, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19.11.2012
+ W.P.(C) 3186/2012
NEELAM DWIVEDI & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms.Anisha Jain and Ms.Divya Garg,
Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber and Ms.Aakri
Jain, Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Mr. B.P. Aggarwal and Mr.Anil
Meena, Advocates for Respondents
No. 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 3186/2012
1. With the consent of the parties, the instant petition is taken up for
disposal.
2. Vide the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking issuance of
direction to the respondents to quash the order of termination of services
dated 23.04.2012 against them and seeking their re-instatement with full
service benefits till the appointment of regular candidates as well.
3. The petitioners are also seeking direction against the respondents to
pay entire back wages from the date of termination of services until the date
of re-instatement and other consequential benefits.
4. The petitioners were appointed vide order dated 05.07.2010 by the
Tribal Co-operative Marketing Development Federation of India Limited
(TRIFED) on the post of Clerks on a consolidated remuneration of
Rs.9,817/-per month.
5. As per the appointment letter, the services of the petitioners were
purely on contract basis for a period of two years from the date of joining
duties in TRIFED and it shall be deemed to have automatically come to an
end on expiry of the contractual engagement period or till a regular
appointment is made, whichever is earlier.
6. I note, in the appointment letter, it is also specifically mentioned that
the appointment of the petitioners on contract basis will not confer any right
for regular appointment to the post and may be terminated even if a regular
post is lying vacant.
7. I further note, in the said appointment letter dated 05.07.2010, it is
mentioned that the contractual appointment is purely on a temporary basis
and it can be terminated by TRIFED during the currency of the contract
without assigning any reason or notice.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners
are aggrieved with the termination order dated 23.04.2012. She has
submitted that the respondents have no right to terminate the services of the
petitioners before expiry of the contractual period i.e. two years from the
date of appointment i.e 05.07.2010.
9. In the termination order dated 23.04.2012, the reason recorded for
termination of the contract was that the TRIFED is no longer interested in
retaining the petitioners in job. Therefore, their services were terminated
with immediate effect in accordance with clause 4 of the appointment letter
dated 05.07.2010.
10. In a matter of contractual service, no one has right to get the regular
status in the service. Since the petitioners have joined the services after
accepting the terms and conditions of the appointment, therefore, the
respondents have every right to terminate their services even before expiry
of the contractual period of two years, which power has been exercised by
the respondents while terminating the services of the petitioners vide its
order dated 23.04.2012.
11. I find no discrepancy in the order passed by the respondents.
12. Therefore, finding no merits in the instant petition, the same is
dismissed in limini.
CM No. 6826/2012 (for stay)
Since the main petition has been dismissed, the instant application has
become infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of.
SURESH KAIT, J.
NOVEMBER 19, 2012
Sb/RS
