Manish Kumar Jain vs Ujjain Smart City Limited
2023 Latest Caselaw 10936 MP

                                                               1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                   ON THE 14 th OF JULY, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 12181 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           MANISH KUMAR JAIN S/O SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA
                           JAIN, AGED     ABOUT   48   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           EXECUTIVE   ENGINEER      (CIVIL)   R/O    15/2,
                           PARDESHIPURA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI HARSHWARDHAN SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    UJJAIN SMART CITY LIMITED EXECUTIVE
                                 DIRECTOR MELA KARYALAYA, KOTHI ROAD,
                                 UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    COLLECTOR UJJAIN CUM CHAIRMAN SMART
                                 CITY LIMITED, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UJJAIN SMART CITY
                                 LIMITED UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI KOUSTUBH PATHAK - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
                           NOS.1-3)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

In the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23/5/2023, Annexure P-1 whereby his services has been terminated on the ground that he has been found to be negligent in discharge of his duties. The petitioner was appointed on the post of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 14-07-2023 18:37:25

Executive Engineer (civil) on contract basis for a period of 2 years by order dated 16/6/2021 w.e.f 24/5/2021.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination of the petitioner is not simpliciter and the order is stigmatic in nature and, therefore, the order of termination could not have been passed without holding enquiry or without giving show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India & Anr. [2012 (2) Supreme 254]. He also relied on the judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha

Mission, Bhopal [2001 (3) M.P.L.J. 616] wherein it has been held that if the order of termination is stigmatic, it cannot be regarded as termination simpliciter and, therefore, the same cannot be passed without holding inquiry. He has also placed reliance on the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 402/2019 (The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Bhopal vs. Mukesh Yadav and Ors.). He also referred the judgment passed by the D.B. in the case of Mission Director, RCH/RCH/NRHM vs. Ranjit Jain & Anr. [2011(4) M.P.H.T. 266] . He also cited the orders passed by coordinate Bench dated 13.03.2019 passed in W.P. No.8682/2018 (Kishan Singh Dudwe vs. State of MP & Ors.) and also the order dated 04.07.2022 passed in WP No.19867/2021 (Madhav Awasya vs. State of MP & Ors) and order dated 25.04.2022 passed in WP No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar vs. Panchayat and Rural Development & Ors.). In the aforesaid cases, it has been held that in the cases of termination of service of contractual employee, the order of termination which is stigmatic in nature cannot be regarded as a termination simpliciter and, therefore, the services cannot be terminated without Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 14-07-2023 18:37:25

conducting regular inquiry.

3. Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of two years which was expired on 24/5/2023 and the respondents have not taken decision not to extend the services of the petitioner on contract basis.Since, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, he has no right to continue on the post.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar(supra) and various judgments passed by this Court, I am of the the view that the services of a contractual employee cannot be terminated by a stigmatic order and, therefore, the impugned order dated 23/5/2023 is set aside.

5. It is further made clear that the order impugned would not be treated to be stigmatic in nature and would not confer a disqualification for future employment. Since, the period of contract has already come to an end on 24/5/2023, this Court is not passing any order of reinstatement.

6. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed off.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Pramod

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 14-07-2023 18:37:25