Delhi High Court
Anshul Sharma And Ors. vs Telecommunications Consultants ... on 30 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: November 30, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 10673/2017 & CMs 43663-64/2017
ANSHUL SHARMA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anup Kumar, Mr. Bhupendra
Singh and Ms. Neha Jaiswal, Advocates
versus
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED
AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Petitioners are the contractual employees of first respondent, who
are aggrieved by impugned Termination Notices (Annexures P-1 to P-5)
and office order (Annexure P-6) vide which their contractual service
comes to an end today forenoon.
2. Quashing of impugned Termination Notices (Annexures P-1 to P-
5) and office order (Annexure P-6) is sought by petitioners while
asserting that first four petitioners have been in contractual employment
of first respondent as Engineers/Technicians since the years 2007/08 and
fifth petitioner has been in contractual employment of first respondent
since the year 2011.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the service of
petitioners is being illegally dispensed with, despite their having
satisfactorily worked on their respective posts. It is pointed out that vide
Advertisement (Annexure P-55) fresh contractual appointments are
sought to be made on petitioners' posts of Engineers/Technicians, which
is not only unjustified but also impermissible. Learned counsel for
petitioners further submits that since petitioners were already working
with first respondent, therefore, they had not applied in pursuance of
Advertisement (Annexure P-55) issued way back in August/September,
2017 and though petitioners are not overage, but they would be getting
lesser pay if they apply pursuant to the fresh Advertisement (Annexure P-
55) now issued for the posts in question.
4. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that petitioners had made
Representations on 26th October, 2017 (Annexure P-57), 13th November,
2017 (Annexure P-59) and 14th November, 2017 (Annexure P-60) seeking
release of their salary dues since July, 2017 and with a request to
respondent to continue with the contractual service of petitioners under
the 'Pan African E-Network Project', but to no avail. It is also submitted
by learned counsel for petitioners that even to the Legal Notice of 20th
November, 2017 (Annexure P-61) sent on behalf of petitioners, there is
no response. Learned counsel for petitioners on instructions submits that
the 'Pan African E-Network Project' has not come to an end and infact
this Project has been extended on 30th June, 2017 for another five years.
Learned counsel for petitioners also submits that pursuant to the
Advertisement (Annexure P-55), no appointments on contractual basis on
the posts of Engineers/Technicians have been yet made by respondents.
5. It is also submitted on behalf of petitioners that advance notice of
this petition has been sent to the respondents by speed post on 28 th
November, 2017. None appears on behalf of respondents despite service
of advance notice.
6. Upon hearing, I find that in the facts and circumstances of this
case, first respondent ought to respond to petitioners' Legal Notice of 20 th
November, 2017 (Annexure P-61) while treating it to be a Representation
and to highlight as to why fresh Advertisement regarding posts on which
petitioners are working is being issued, especially, when petitioners are
already working on contractual basis and fresh Advertisements too are
also for employment on contractual basis. This aspect needs to be
considered in light of the service record record/performance of
petitioners. Petitioners' claim for withdrawal of impugned Termination
Notices (Annexures P-1 to P-5) and office order (Annexure P-6) and also
their claim for release of salary from July, 2017 are required to be dealt
with by first respondent while spelling out the reasons in support of the
decision so taken. In case, fresh appointment on contractual basis in place
of petitioners have not been made by respondents till date, then
petitioners be permitted to continue on the posts held by them, till
petitioners' Legal Notice of 20th November, 2017 (Annexure P-61) is
decided by first respondent. Let petitioners' Legal Notice of 20 th
November, 2017 (Annexure P-61) be decided by first respondent
expeditiously but latest within four weeks and the fate of the Legal
Notice, now treated as Representation, be made known to petitioners
within a week thereafter. Till then, petitioners be allowed to man the
positions held by them.
7. Let first respondent be apprised of this order forthwith to ensure its
compliance.
8. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
disposed of.
9. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court
Master to learned counsel for the parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 30, 2017
s
