Delhi High Court
S.B. Jain vs Indian ... on 15 February, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 15, 2018
+ W.P. (C) 3262/2012
S.B. JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonia A. Menon, Advocate
versus
INDIAN CO-CHAIRPERSON(SECRETARY OF GOVT. OF
INDIA AND ANR.) ....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Mr. Pravesh
Sharma, Mr. Siddarth Kapila and Mr. Sushil
Kumar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Impugned order of 30th August, 2011 (Annexure- P-1) puts an end
to petitioner's contract of service as Manager (Administration and
Accounts) with respondents and relieves him of his duties. Against
impugned order of 30th August, 2011 (Annexure- P-1), petitioner had
filed an appeal which stands declined vide an undated order (purportedly
received by petitioner in the last week of February, 2012). It is a matter
of record that petitioner was appointed as Manager (Administration and
Accounts) vide Office Order of 13th April, 2009 (Annexure P-2) which
stipulates that petitioner's contractual service is for a period of two years
and on completion of contract period, it can be extended further as
mutually agreed upon. As per Office Order of 13th April, 2009
(Annexure P-2) petitioner's joining was subject to submission of medical
certificate and other terms and conditions of his employment as per the
Rules and Regulations and Byelaws approved by the governing body of
respondents. Alongwith this Writ Petition, copy of the respondents'
Byelaws (Annexure P-3) have been appended. Quashing of impugned
order of 30th August, 2011 (Annexure- P-1) as well as Appellate Order
(Annexure P-7) is sought on the ground that the termination of
petitioner's service is not only arbitrary, but it is contrary to the Byelaws
(Annexure P-3).
2. Learned counsel for respondents supports the impugned order and
submits that petitioner is not an employee of respondents and so is not
governed by Byelaws (Annexure P-3). It is submitted that the
Performance Evaluation Committee of the respondent vide order of 6th
July, 2011 (Annexure- 2 to the counter affidavit) has evaluated the
performance of petitioner and has decided not to extend petitioner's
tenure and has limited it to 31st August, 2011. Respondents' counsel
draws the attention of this Court to Annexures- 2 to 11 to show that
petitioner had acquiesced to termination of his tenure and had asked for
leave encashment etc.
3. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, Appellate Order
and the material on record, I find that petitioner was not given regular
appointment in terms of Byelaws (Annexure P-3) and rightly so, because
petitioner had joined respondent after the age of 60 years. It appears that
the Director of respondent- Indo French Centre for Promotion of
Advanced Research in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Clause-
15 of Byelaws (Annexure P-3) (which empowers him to enter into a
Contract with others) had employed petitioner on contractual basis.
Petitioner's contractual employment with respondent was only for the
purpose of assisting Director of respondent in discharge of his functions
pertaining to finance and accounts.
4. As per Appointment Letter (Annexure P-2), extension of
petitioner's contractual service was to be mutually agreed upon. The
Performance Evaluation Committee of respondent in its discretion has
chosen not to extend petitioner's tenure and has confined it till August,
2011. Since petitioner is not in regular employment of respondent,
therefore, he is not covered by Clause-10 of Byelaws (Annexure P-3) and
so, non-adherence to Byelaws (Annexure P-3) is of no consequence.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, in view of terms and
conditions mutually agreed between the parties, petitioner cannot
unilaterally seek extension of his contractual service as a matter of right.
As per Appointment Letter (Annexure P-2), extension of petitioner's
contractual service had to be mutual. In the aforesaid view of the matter,
I find no palpable error in the impugned order or the Appellate Order
requiring interference of this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution
of India. As such this petition is dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
r
