Jagdeep Khanna vs Principal Resident Commissioner ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 5339 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 1350/2000
%                                                     20th November, 2013

JAGDEEP KHANNA                                              ......Petitioner
                          Through:       None.


                          VERSUS

PRINCIPAL RESIDENT COMMISSIONER & ORS.                      ...... Respondents
                  Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    By this writ petition, petitioner impugns the order dated 13.12.1999

passed by the respondent no.1/employer/Principal Resident Commissioner

terminating the contractual period of services prematurely. This order dated

13.12.1999 reads as under:-

      "No. /MPB/99                               Date: 13-12-99
                          OFFICE ORDER
            The services of the Jagdeep Khanna, House Manager on
      contract basis at M.P. Bhawan, New Delhi are terminated with effect
      as his services are no more required on this post vide letter no.
      3816/MPB/99.
            A cheque of Rs.10,000/- as a one month's salary in lieu of
      termination of service as per the clause no.5 of appointment letter
WPC 1350/2000                                                                  Page 1 of 3
       order no. 398/MPB/98 dt. 13.2.98 is attached here with vide
      no.253131 dated 13.12.99 of the Central Bank of India, payable at
      Ashoka Hotel Branch, New Delhi
                                              Sd/-
                                       Principal Resident Commissioner"
2.           It is settled law that a contractual employee can always be

terminated in terms of the contract. In the present case, appointment of the

petitioner was in terms of the order dated 13.2.1998 and as per para-5 of

which contract of services could be terminated by giving one month's notice

or salary in lieu thereof.


3.           Petitioner's services have been terminated by giving him one

month's notice and salary in lieu of termination. It is settled law that this

Court cannot decide the satisfactory nature of service or otherwise of an

employee and which is to be best decided by the employer. Once the

services are contractual and they are terminated in accordance with the

contract there can be no legal remedy to a petitioner such as the present.


4.           I may also note that the impugned order is not a stigmatic order

though the petitioner seems to contend so. In fact, it has been held by

Supreme Court in various judgments being Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.)

Ltd. Vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 491, State of

W.B. and Others Vs. Tapas Roy (2006) 6 SCC 453, Chaitanya Prakash
WPC 1350/2000                                                                Page 2 of 3
 and Anr. Vs. H. Omkarappa (2010) 2 SCC 623 and Abhijit Gupta Vs.

S.N.B.National Centre, Basic Sciences & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 469 that

termination orders cannot be stigmatic even if they specify that the services

are not satisfactory or there is lack of competence etc. etc.


5.           In view of above, there is no legal right in the petitioner to

challenge the termination of his contractual services, as admittedly the

services have been terminated in accordance with the contract by giving one

month's notice and salary in lieu of termination. Though the petitioner has

raised various issues of his services being satisfactory and services of other

employees not being satisfactory, I need not go into such aspects once the

services of the petitioner are terminated in accordance with the contract.

Also there is no legal right in the person to seek extension of contractual

services, and which decision is ordinarily a sole privilege of the employer

and courts do not substitute their views for that of the employer for not

extending of contractual services.


6.           In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.



NOVEMBER 20, 2013                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib