Delhi High Court
Pradeep Kumr Raghav vs Telecommunication Consultants ... on 8 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 08, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 130/2018 & C.Ms. 578-579/2018
PRADEEP KUMR RAGHAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shankar K. Jha, Advocate
Versus
TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
1. Vide impugned Office Order of 10th November, 2017 (Annexure
P/18) respondent has intimated petitioner that his contract has come to an
end and extension of contract is not possible and that petitioner may
apply afresh, if any such post is advertised in future.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner assails impugned order (Annexure
P/18) on the ground that Oman Project, where petitioner was employed
on contractual basis since the year 2009, is still continuing and so,
petitioner's contract ought to have been renewed and that it was last
renewed till 30th June, 2017. Learned counsel for petitioner further
submits that petitioner cannot be arbitrarily relieved, as Clauses-12 & 13
of the Contract of Service For Temporary Project of 11th March, 2010
(Annexure P/3 colly) clearly provides that petitioner's contractual
employment can be terminated when the project comes to an end or if the
contractual employee is found to be not performing the functions suitably
and in any case, either one month's notice in writing or one month's
salary in lieu thereof, ought to be given. It is submitted that petitioner has
not been issued any such notice nor any salary in lieu of the notice period
was tendered to petitioner and so, the impugned relieving is not in
consonance with the terms of employment and that the Oman Project is
still continuing. Reliance is placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Anil Lamba & ors. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi &
Ors. (2017) SCC OnLine Del 7382 to submit that in view of Supreme
Court's decision in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors. AIR
1992 SC 2130, one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by
another set of contractual employees, unless there are valid reasons for
doing so i.e. some misconduct is attributable to such contractual
employee. Attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure P/19 to point out
that respondent has issued a fresh Advertisement to prepare a panel of
qualified and experienced candidates for the post of Engineers on contract
basis and the maximum age prescribed is 40 years. So, it is submitted that
the impugned Office Order of 10th November, 2017 (Annexure P/18)
deserves to be set aside and respondent be directed to continue with
petitioner's service either in Oman Project or anywhere else.
3. Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Advocate, appears on advance notice and
submits on instructions that the existing Pan African E Network Project
i.e. the Oman Project in question, has been upgraded under the new name
of e-Vidyabharati and e-Aarogybharati but this integrated project has not
been launched and therefore, upon completion of petitioner's contractual
service, he has been relieved and if petitioner applies in response to the
fresh Advertisement (Annexure P/19), then he will be duly considered, as
and when the aforesaid upgraded project is launched. Learned counsel for
respondent submits that in view of a later Supreme Court's decision in
Gridco Limited & Anr. Vs. Sadananda Doloi & Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 16,
petitioner has no vested right to continue with the contractual service
after the project in question is no longer operational.
4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's
relieving is in utter violation of terms of contractual employment as Pan
African E Network Project is a different project than the Oman Project,
which is continuing since 1982 till date, therefore, petitioner's service
cannot be dispensed with in the manner it has been done.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of Office Order of 10th November,
2017 (Annexure P/18), material on record and the decisions cited, I find
that ratio of Supreme Court's decision in Piara Singh (Supra), has
undergone a sea change. Supreme Court in its later decision in Gridco
Limited (Supra), has clarified that contractual appointments work only if
they are mutually beneficial to both the contracting parties and not
otherwise. It is true that if petitioner's service was to be dispensed with,
then it ought to have been formally terminated in case of misconduct etc.
Since the instant case is not of misconduct but discontinuance of project
in which petitioner was contractually employed, therefore, strict
adherence to the terms and conditions of the appointment letter or
contract agreement is not called for. Since it has been submitted by
counsel for respondent on instructions that the existing project is no
longer operational, therefore, this Court has no reason to discard the
aforesaid stand taken on behalf of respondent. The existing project is to
be re-launched under a new name but according to respondent, it has not
been done as yet. So, no case for issuance of any directions to respondent
is made out.
6. During the course of hearing, it was not disputed that petitioner is
eligible to apply in pursuance to fresh Advertisement (Annexure P/19).
For the reasons best known to petitioner, he has chosen not to do so. Be
that as it may. Petitioner is not being denied any opportunity of
employment nor has any discrimination been alleged by him. There is a
notable shift from the legal position, as stated in the case of Piara Singh
(Supra). Renewal of contract of employment depends upon the perception
and discretion of the management of respondent. Whether a contract has
to be renewed or continued or not, cannot be questioned as this Court
cannot sit in an armchair of the Administrator and decide what would be
the reasonable course of action to adopt.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, impugned Office Order of
10th November, 2017 (Annexure P/18) does not suffer from any illegality,
perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality. Hence, finding
no substance in this petition, it is dismissed. Pending applications are also
dismissed as infructuous.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 08, 2018
r
