Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ritu Narula vs Chief General Manager Cum Chairman.. ... on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43229
1 WP-8141-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 8141 of 2018
SMT. RITU NARULA
Versus
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER CUM CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naveen Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pankaj Waghmode - Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1 (through video conferencing mode).
Shri Ashok Shrivastava - Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent
No.2 (through video conferencing mode).
ORDER
(Reserved on : 04.09.2025)
(Pronounced on : 08.09.2025)
The present petitioner has been filed challenging firstly the order
Annexure P-7 dated 01.04.2017, whereby the petitioner has been asked to
work by assisting Shri S.B. Jain, Chief Manager and handover charge of
Personal Secretary of Managing Director to one Ms. Jessy Joseph. Further
challenge is made to alleged oral termination of services of the petitioner,
which is said to have taken place in March 2018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the
action of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 is bad in law. It is argued that the
petitioner was initially appointed vide order Annexure P-1 as Executive
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43229
2 WP-8141-2018
Secretary to the Managing Director from 12.09.2012. The appointment was
initially on retainership basis on monthly fees of Rs.15,000/- and thereafter,
it was to be on contract basis on fixed remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per
month and subject to satisfactory performance during retainership period, the
petitioner was to be taken in service as contractual employee. It is further
argued that the contract was executed with the petitioner, and from time to
time orders extending contractual service were issued in favor of the
petitioner. By referring to clause 4 of one such order Annexure P-5 dated
10.12.2015, it is argued that there was requirement of one month notice or
salary in lieu of notice period in the case of termination of service. It is
argued that if the petitioner was found non-performer or guilty of fraud,
dishonesty, negligence, indiscipline etc. the services were liable to be
terminated without notice. It is contended that no act of indiscipline has been
alleged against the petitioner and therefore, notice period of one month was
mandatory and has not been followed in case of petitioner
3. It is further argued that the services of the petitioner could not have
been terminated by casting stigma on the petitioner and by referring to
judgment passed by this Court in W.A. No.829 of 2015 (Sangita Singh and
another versus State of MP and others), it is argued that even contractual
employee cannot be terminated with a stigmatic order without any due
opportunity of hearing. By further placing reliance on judgment of Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Deepak Nagle vs. State of M.P. & others
(2014) 2 MP LJ 76 , it is argued that stigmatic order urged in violation of
natural justice has to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43229
3 WP-8141-2018
relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akola Taluka
Education Society v. Shivaji, (2007) 9 SCC 564 , wherein in para 18 it has
been held that non supply of prior notice as laid down in the terms of the
Contract vitiates the action.
4. It is further argued that only with a view to accommodate Ms. Jessy
Joseph, the petitioner was first shifted out from the office of Managing
Director and transferred to work under Shri S.B. Jain, Chief Manager and
then unceremoniously her services were terminated without passing any
formal order.
5 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 are
vehemently argued that the petition is devoid of merits. It is contended that
petition was a contractual employee and contract was extended from time to
time and the last extension of contract was vide Annexure P-6 dated
29.12.2016 for a period of one year starting from 01.01.2017, i.e. up to
31.12.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner was further retained for three months
as she contended that she is unable to find any alternate employment within a
short span of time and then after 31.03.2018 her services were not continued.
It is argued that the question of notice period would have been relevant only
if the petitioner's services were terminated during currency of contract
period. As the contract period was already over on 31.12.2017, therefore,
there was no requirement to issue one month notice. It is further argued that
the termination of services of petitioner was not any stigmatic action and the
petitioner was only contractual employee and she was retained only till there
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43229
4 WP-8141-2018
was requirement of work. So far as replacement of petitioner by one Ms.
Jessy Joseph is concerned, it is contended that the said employee is a
permanent employee and was not a contractual employee, therefore, the
petitioner should have no grievance with retention of Ms. Jesee Joseph and
replacement of petitioner by her.
6 . Upon hearing the rival parties, it is seen that the petitioner was
initially appointed on retainership basis for three months and thereafter taken
on contract basis. She was granted extension from time to time and the last
extension took place vide Annexure P-6, which was valid only up to
31.12.2017. In the extension orders placed on record, it is clearly mentioned
that the appointment is temporary in nature and appointee would not lay any
claim on permanent rolls of the respondents Nos.2 & 3. It is further
mentioned in the appointment/extension orders that the services are liable to
be transferred in any office of the respondents. Therefore, the transfer of the
petitioner, which took place vide Annexure P-7 within the same office from
being Secretary to one Officer, to being Secretary to another officer, could
have been done by the respondents, because they did not even amount to
transfer as no change of headquarter or office took place.
7 . The respondents have not passed any stigmatic order in case of
petitioner and since the contractual period of the petitioner was over, they in
fact did not pass any order whatsoever. Therefore, the petitioner cannot argue
that she has been visited with a stigmatic order or that any enquiry was
required, because it is a simplicitor case of contractual employee not being
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43229
5 WP-8141-2018
continued after expiry of contract period.
8. The petitioner has not placed anything on record to show that other
employees, who were appointed on contractual basis later to the petitioner
have been retained in service and the petitioner has not been continued so
that this Court could have interfered in the action of the respondents in not
continuing the petitioner after expiry of contractual tenure. Nothing of this
sort has been placed on record by the petitioner and therefore, it's a
simplicitor case of non-extension of contract after contractual period is over,
which not an stigmatic action. No discrimination in the action of the
respondents has been brought to the notice of this Court, nor any stigmatic
order has been passed.
9 . Therefore, no grounds are made out to interfere in the present
matter. The petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
