Gujarat State Electricity Corporation ... vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 5293 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation ... vs State Of Gujarat on 30 June, 2025

Author: A.S. Supehia

Bench: A.S. Supehia

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                               C/LPA/505/2022                                ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                        R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 505 of 2022
                                      In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 873 of 2018
                       ==========================================================
                        GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED SUCCESSOR
                                 OF BHAVNAGAR ENERGY COMPANY LIMITED
                                                  Versus
                                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No.
                       10,11,12,13,14,15,16,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
                       ==========================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                                and
                                HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                                                    Date : 30/06/2025
                                                     ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. On 16.09.2022, this court has passed the following order:

"Though served, respondent has chosen not to appear before this Court.

Learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing for the applicant states that the amount of compensation as ordered to be paid by the applicant by way of ad- interim order dated 12.04.2022 passed in present application has already been deposited with the Registry of this Court.

Hence, ad-interim relief granted earlier is hereby confirmed.

Present Civil Application (For Stay) is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly."

2. Today also, when the matter is taken up for hearing, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 16 hence, we are

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/505/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

constrained to take up the present appeal in their absence.

3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Dave has pointed out that the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order more particularly, paragraph Nos.42 and 43, are as under:

"42. In wake of well settled law so far as the contractual employees are concerned, in absence of any discriminatory practice adopted by the State, Court will be constrained not to either permit any renewal or reinstatement of any of the petitioners or direct renewal of the contract which is ended. It is noticed by this Court that the the respondent management has reserved right to terminate the services of the employees at any time without assigning any reason and their services also could be assigned to any other subsidiary or associate Company. While choosing not to do so, the State has chosen to handover O&M to KEPCO, which has chosen to follow its-own procedure and their follower is again by following regular process of recruitment as per their recruitment norms and KEPCO is a separate entity and the KEPCO has not adopted any illogical, irrational or discriminatory practice.

43. Resultantly, the limited relief that can be granted to those petitioners whose contract had not been completed of directing the respondent management to pay salary and other benefits available to those petitioners, if any, more particularly, to the petitioner Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 15 from the date of termination till the date of completion of the contract and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to each of the petitioners whose services had been prematurely terminated. Order accordingly. In case of petitioner Nos.2,4,9,11 and 12 there shall

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/505/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

be no relief and petition qua them stands dismissed."

4. It appears that the respondents are not interested in the matter as the learned Single Judge has only granted limited relief to the private respondents, whose contract had not been completed of directing the Management to pay salary and other benefits from the date of termination till the date of completion of contract and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each of the petitioners, whose service had been prematurely terminated.

5. Pursuant to the interim order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as mentioned hereinabove, it appears that the appellant has deposited an amount before the Registry of this Court.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Dave has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of GRIDCO Limited and Anr. Vs. Sadananda Doloi and Ors., (2011) 15 SCC 16 and has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in issuing the aforesaid directions as the private respondents were engaged on contractual basis for a fixed period and when their contracts got over, their contracts were not extended and in some of the employees, services were terminated as per the contract of their service. He has pointed out the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/505/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

terms and conditions stipulated in an appointment order of one of the respondents namely, Abhijeetsingh Rajendrasingh Gohil more particularly, Clause 1 and 18.

7. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute as the respondents have chosen not to appear. The terms and conditions of the contractual appointment order more particularly, Condition No.18, reads as under:

"18. Notwithstanding anything contained int his order, the Management reserves its right to terminate your services at any time during your service period without assigning any reason whatsoever by giving one month's notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof. Similarly upon confirmation the services are determinable by either side by giving two month's notice or the notice pay in lieu thereof by either party."

8. It manifests that the service of the contractual employees can be terminated, after giving one month's notice in writing and paying dues thereof. In case of other contractual employees, whose services were extended beyond contract period, the appellant-Company has terminated their service by issuing one month's notice and in some of the employees, contract period is not extended.

9. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of GRIDCO Limited and Anr. (supra).

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/505/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

"26. A conspectus of the pronouncements of this court and the development of law over the past few decades thus show that there has been a notable shift from the stated legal position settled in earlier decisions, that termination of a contractual employment in accordance with the terms of the contract was permissible and the employee could claim no protection against such termination even when one of the contracting parties happened to be the State. Remedy for a breach of a contractual condition was also by way of civil action for damages/compensation. With the development of law relating to judicial review of administrative actions, a writ Court can now examine the validity of a termination order passed by public authority. It is no longer open to the authority passing the order to argue that its action being in the realm of contract is not open to judicial review. A writ Court is entitled to judicially review the action and determine whether there was any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality that would vitiate the action, no matter the action is in the realm of contract. Having said that we must add that judicial review cannot extend to the Court acting as an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the decision. The Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the Administrator to decide whether a more reasonable decision or course of action could have been taken in the circumstances. So long as the action taken by the authority is not shown to be vitiated by the infirmities referred to above and so long as the action is not demonstrably in outrageous defiance of logic, the writ Court would do well to respect the decision under challenge."

10. It is settled legal precedent that the contractual employees has no right on the post, and their service is governed by the terms of contract.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/505/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025

undefined

11. In the present case, we do not find that the appellant has violated the conditions of the contract. Merely because some of the respondents are continued beyond the period of contract, the same would not ipso facto give any rise to cling on the post, on which they were appointed on contract basis.

12. In view of the foregoing observations, the present appeal succeeds. The judgement and order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition is hereby quashed and set aside. Registry is directed to refund the amount to the appellant, after due verification.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

Sd/-

(R. T. VACHHANI, J) NVMEWADA/36