Delhi High Court
Azad Singh Hooda vs Delhi Technology University & Ors on 19 September, 2016
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 511/2016
Date of decision: 19th September, 2016
AZAD SINGH HOODA ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Rashmi Chopra and
Ms. Asiya, Advocates.
versus
DELHI TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY & ORS..... Respondent
Through Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
for DTU.
Mr. Ahit Singh and Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhati,
Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Azad Singh Hooda, the appellant, impugns the order dated 8th
August, 2015, whereby W.P. (C) 7067/2015 filed by him has been
dismissed.
2. The appellant having retired as a Navy Officer at the age of about
60 years, by the letter dated 29th December, 2010, was offered
appointment as a Junior Technical Assistant in the Automobile
Engineering Department of the Delhi Technological University on
contract basis for a period of six months or till the post was filled up on
regular basis or on promotion, whichever occurred earlier. The
appointment letter specifically stipulated that the appellant would be
entitled to a consolidated remuneration. The appellant joined the said
post on 5th January, 2011. The contractual employment of the appellant
came to an end on regular appointments being made to the post of
Junior Technical Assistant in Automobile Engineering Department.
The appellant, however, by office order dated 12th January, 2011 was
assigned work in the Laboratory Workshop. Subsequently, by
memorandum dated 29th July, 2011, the appellant was given contractual
appointment as Senior Mechanic, GP-V in the Mechanical Engineering
Department of the University. This memorandum records that the
appellant would be entitled to a consolidated remuneration of
Rs.11,360/- plus Dearness Allowance. The appointment was initially
for a period of one year or till the post was filled on regular basis or
promotion, whichever was earlier. The appointment could be
terminated by the respondent University by giving one month's notice
or giving one month's salary without assigning any reason. The
letter/memorandum clarified that the appointee i.e. the appellant had
understood that the appointment was purely temporary and he would
have no right to claim extension of the contractual appointment or
absorption into a regular appointment on the said post. The aforesaid
contractual employment was extended from time to time and the last
extended term had ended on 30th June, 2015.
3. By letter dated 25th June, 2015, the appellant was informed as
under:-
It is to inform you that your deployment period as Senior
Mechanic on contractual basis is going to expire on
30.06.2015 W.P.(C) No. 7067/2015 Page 2 of 12 and you
have attained the age more than 60 years. Therefore, as per
the University policy and on the recommendations of the
concerned HoD, the Competent Authority has decided that
your contractual period will not be extended beyond
30.06.2015.
You are also requested to submit the No Dues Certificate
from the concerned Departments/Branches, so that your
remuneration for the month of June 2015 may be disbursed.
The appellant had challenged the aforesaid letter in W.P.(C)
No.7067/2015.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant impugning and challenging the
letter dated 25th June, 2015 has submitted that the said letter was
punitive. This fact was apparent from the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent-University, which relies upon the internal enquiry report
dated 25th May, 2015. The said enquiry report, it is submitted, was
made behind the back and without asking for any reply from the
appellant. There was a violation of principles of natural justice. The
appellant is entitled to continue till the age of 70 years as in other cases,
contractual employment has been extended upto the age of 70 years.
5. We have considered the said contentions, but regret our inability
to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. The appointment of
the appellant was clearly on contractual basis and was renewed on year
to year basis. The last extended term of contractual employment had
come to an end on 30th June, 2015. This is not a case where contractual
employment was pre-maturely terminated before expiration of contract
period. Whether or not the contractual employment should be extended
was internally examined and in view of the examination, it was decided
that the contractual employment of the appellant should not be
extended. We perceive and believe that the principles of natural justice
were not violated or abridged by the internal report dated 25th May,
2015. The report reflects the verification mechanism adopted and
followed by the respondent University. It ensured fairness and
objectivity before passing the administrative order. The appellant was
not required to be furnished with a copy of the said internal report, or be
heard before the decision whether or not the period of contractual
employment was to be extended was taken. The report was not
regarding an inquiry into a particular or specific misconduct, albeit it
was regarding the general conduct and performance of the appellant to
ascertain and decide whether the contractual employment should be
extended. The report was referred to and brought on record in the
counter affidavit only when the appellant filed the writ petition and
assertions were made.
6. The order dated 25th June, 2015 is not a punitive order or an
inculpatory order giving or making any adverse comments about the
work of the appellant. Whether or not the contractual term of the
appellant should be extended was within the purview and jurisdiction of
the respondent-University and they have taken the said decision.
7. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JAYANT NATH J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2016
NA
