[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sangita Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 4 December, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:36303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.4088 of 2021
-----
Sangita Kumari, W/o Anil Kumar Verma, R/o Quarter No.43, Nurses Quarters, P.O.
and P.S. Sakchi, District- East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur)
.... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health, Family
Welfare and Medical Education, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S Doranda, District-
Ranchi
2.The Project Director, National Health Mission, Department of Health, Family
Welfare and Medical Education, RCH Building, Namkum, P.O. and P/S. Namkum,
District- Ranchi
3.The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, P.O, P.S. and District-
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4.The District Tuberculosis Officer, P.O., P.S. and District- Jamshedpur, East
Singhbhum
5.The Deputy Commissioner, P.O., P.S. and District- Jamshedpur, East Singhbum
6.Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, P.O, P.S. and District- Jamshedpur, East
Singhbhum
... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Ayush Deb, AC to G.P.-VI
.........
21/ 04.12.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to quash the
order dated 24.02.2021 issued vide Memo No.486 (Annexure-23),
whereby the service contract of the petitioner has been terminated.
Further, petitioner prays to quash the order dated 12.12.2020
(Annexure-20), whereby the respondents have taken a decision to
withhold the payment of honorarium to the petitioner. He has also
prayed to release the arrears of the honorarium as it was not paid to
the petitioner.
3. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the honorarium which was due to the petitioner, for the
period, which he has already worked has already been released in
favour of the petitioner.
4. The contract of service of the petitioner was cancelled on the
ground that the petitioner has submitted a caste certificate showing
her to be in the category of BC-II, whereas in another application filed
by the petitioner, the petitioner claimed herself to be of BC-I category.
Considering the aforesaid discrepancy, the petitioner's service
contract was terminated. Be it noted that the petitioner also admits that
in earlier application, petitioner has filed a caste certificate showing
her to be a member of BC-I category, which infact is not correct caste
of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner was appointed on 30.05.2020 vide order dated
30.05.2020 as Lab Technician. According to the petitioner, she belongs
to BC-II category. As it was found that there is some discrepancies in
declaration of the caste of the petitioner as on the earlier occasion, she
declared herself to be of category BC-I, vide order dated 31.12.2020
contained in Memo No.461, she was stopped from performing her
work. Ultimately vide the impugned order, the contract of service was
cancelled.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was a contractual employee. As per
the Clause-10 of the contract of appointment, the period of contract
initially was for one year. Admittedly, the contract was cancelled
within the period of one year. The fact which also cannot be lost sight
of is that there is provision of extension of the contract, if the
petitioner's work is found to be satisfactory. As per the contract the
same will only be extended after proper evaluation of performance of
the petitioner.
7. As noted earlier, the petitioner's contract of service was
terminated within a period of one year i.e. 24.02.2021. It is also an
admitted fact that prior to cancellation of the contract, the petitioner
was neither noticed nor any proceeding was initiated against her.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and Others vs Brijesh Kumar and Another
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282, has held that even to terminate
the service contract of contractual employee and terminate him, it is
necessary to give a show cause to the petitioner or to initiate a
departmental proceeding. It has been held that bare minimum which
can be done is to issue a show cause to the employee to defend
herself/himself. Paragraph 19 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted
hereunder:-
19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the
ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry
or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The termination order has
been passed on the basis of some report which probably was not even
supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to have been
issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination of his
services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of
alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice.
The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not
have been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice.
9. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that even in a case where
the contractual employee is sought to be removed by casting
aspersions or if the removal is stigmatic or cancellation of contract is
based on some allegations, the principle of natural justice has to be
followed. In this case, admittedly, no notice was issued to the
petitioner prior to termination of her service. The only material which
is there on record is the order of suspension of this petitioner. It is also
an admitted case that the contract of the petitioner was terminated
casting aspersions which infact is stigma. Thus, the impugned order
dated 24.02.2021 is bad and is hereby set aside.
10. Now the question is what relief can be granted to the petitioner.
Admittedly the contract of the petitioner was for one year. Petitioner
has got no inherent right to get the same extended. The extension is
solely based upon the performance of the petitioner. The utmost relief
which the petitioner will get is allow her to work for a period of one
year, which is the period of contract. The right to extend the contract
is based on the discretion of the employer. It is also not the case where
even if the petitioner's work is satisfactory, the respondents are duty
bound to extend the contract.
11. Since I have hold that the action of the respondent in removing
the petitioner without following the principle of natural justice is bad,
the best relief which the petitioner can get is the salary for the
remaining period of her contract i.e. till 30.05.2021.
12. Thus, I direct the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner
which she is entitled to for the period, which she worked till the
conclusion of the period of contract.
13. Further, it is made clear that if the petitioner applies for any other
posts, this termination order will not come in the way in re-employing
or re-engaging the petitioner.
14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
th
04 December, 2025
R.S./
Uploaded on 06 /12/2025
