Punjab-Haryana High Court
Richa Budhiraja vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 February, 2021
CWP-2793-2020 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.102
CWP-2793-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision : 26.2.2021
Dr. Richa Budhiraja ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate and
Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana.
*****
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioner was appointed as District Child Protection
Officer on contract basis vide appointment letter dated 4.4.2012. The
contract was extended from time to time as was the contract of other
employees appointed under the Haryana Integrated Child Protection
Scheme. In February 2019, she proceeded on medical leave from
4.2.2019 till 25.2.2019 and re-joined duty on 26.2.2019. However, she
was not given charge of District Child Protection Officer. A number of
representations were made by her, but to no avail. Thus, she approached
this Court through this writ petition challenging the action of denial of
charge of the post of District Child Protection Officer. During the
pendency of the writ petition, order dated 7.10.2020 (Annexure P-35) was
passed, whereby, contract of all other employees was extended except that
1 of 5
of the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition was amended for including the
challenge to the said letter.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
last appraisal report of the petitioner is for the period 2018-19, in which,
she has been graded fit for extension. The said report is upto 31.3.2019.
Further, reply dated 6.9.2019 received under the Right to Information Act,
2005, shows that there was no public complaint against the petitioner
during the period July-2018 to July-2019. Another information was
provided in the said reply and that was regarding issuance of warning vide
letter dated 22.2.2019. It is submitted that explanation was sought from
the petitioner vide communication dated 13.2.2019 for being absent from
a meeting and reply thereto was submitted that she had no knowledge of
the said meeting. The explanation was accepted and yet, a warning note
was issued. Thus, non-extension of the contract of the petitioner is
arbitrary. The scheme is in existence and thus, there is no good ground
not to extend the contract of the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon
judgment dated 22.4.2009 passed by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.7922 of 2002 titled as Md. Abdul Kadir and another Vs. Director
General of Police, Assam and others, wherein, it has been held that so
long as a scheme is in-force, appointment should continue on ad hoc or
temporary basis and the process of termination and re-appointment every
now and then should be avoided.
Learned State counsel submits that a perusal of condition
No.2 and condition No.5 of appointment letter shows that an employee
was not entitled to any medical leave and that in case of work and conduct
2 of 5
was not found satisfactory, the contract could be terminated at any time.
By placing reliance upon Annexures R-1 to R-15, it has been argued that
starting from 15.5.2015, a number of letters seeking explanation from the
petitioner had to be issued. A complaint dated 22.12.2015, regarding
attitude of non-cooperation with seniors was also recevied, a copy of
which is on record as Annexure R-6. On three separate occasions, the
petitioner was warned/counseled. The last explanation sought was vide
letter dated 6.5.2019, a copy of which is on record as Annexure R-15.
This correspondence shows that the work and conduct of the petitioner
was not satisfactory. The period from 4.2.2019 to 25.2.2019 was treated
as unauthorized absence as the petitioner was not entitled to any medical
leave. Thus, upon re-joining on 26.2.2019, she was not handed over
charge of post of District Child Protection Officer. Finally, when
contracts of other employees were extended vide letter dated 7.10.2020,
the contract of the petitioner was not extended and non-extension of her
contract was because of un-satisfactory work and conduct. For the said
reason her services could have been terminated earlier, yet, a sympathetic
attitude was adopted. The impugned order is legal and valid and deserves
to be upheld.
In rebuttal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the period for which, it has been alleged that the work and conduct
of the petitioner was not satisfactory extended from 15.5.2015 till
6.5.2019. In between, the contract of the petitioner was extended on
12.12.2017, 25.7.2018, 29.11.2018 and 5.3.2019. Thus, the respondents
3 of 5
cannot submit that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not
satisfactory.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed
vide appointment letter dated 4.4.2012. One of the conditions of her
appointment was that in case of work and conduct being not satisfactory,
the services could be terminated at any time. For the same reason, an
employer was entitled not renew the contract. Thus, the core question
that arises in this writ petition is, whether, in the facts and circumstances
of this case, it can be said that the work and conduct of the petitioner was
not up to mark ?
The communications placed on record by learned State
counsel as Annexures R-1 to R-15 have not been denied. It is also not
denied that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of medical leave. Thus,
the respondents were justified in withdrawing the charge from her when
she re-joined duty on 26.2.2019. She remained absent without authorized
leave for a continuous period of 20 days and under the circumstances, the
past conduct of the petitioner became relevant, even though, her contract
had been extended after seeking various explanation from her and issuing
her warnings. The appraisal report for the year 2018-19 also cannot come
to her aid as although, she was found fit for extension in the said report,
her subsequent conduct coupled with her past conduct would justify
taking the view that her work and conduct was not satisfactory.
Extension of contract from time to time and a favourable appraisal report
cannot lead to the conclusion that the past behavior of the petitioner was
wiped off from the record. This is not a case, where, punishment had
4 of 5
been imposed for past mis-conduct and thus it has to be inferred that the
same cannot be taken into consideration while imposing a fresh
punishment. Thus, the impugned order dated 7.10.2020 (Annexure P-35)
deserves to be upheld.
The judgment in Md. Abdul Kadir (supra) is distinguishable
as this is not a case of frequent termination and re-appointment nor is it a
case, where, the contract has not been extended without any valid reason
despite the continuation of the scheme.
In view of the above, the writ petition has no merit and is
dismissed.
The petitioner shall, however, be entitled to be paid salary for
the period 26.2.2019 till 6.10.2020 when she remained in service and was
made to work though not on the post of District Child Protection Officer.
(SUDHIR MITTAL)
JUDGE
26.2.2021
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes/ No
5 of 5
