Smt. Vijaylaxmi vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8961 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:37300]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7616/2018

Smt. Vijaylaxmi W/o Shri Shakti Singh, R/o Tirupati Nagar, Nandri, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Welfare Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Medical And Health Welfare Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Medical Officer, Community Health Centre Health Centre, Banar, Jodhpur.

4. The Junior Specialist And In-Charge, Community Health Centre, Banar, Jodhpur.

5. The Secretary, Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Community Health Centre, Banar, Jodhpur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Dr. H.S. Shekhawat
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Gaurav Ranka for Ms. Vandana
                                Bhansali



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

02/11/2023

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 23.05.2018, whereby petitioner's

contractual engagement has been dispensed with by the

respondents.

2. The facts appertain are that the petitioner was engaged as a

Data Entry Operator by the order dated 29.01.2016 for a period of

one year.

[2023:RJ-JD:37300] (2 of 5) [CW-7616/2018]

3. During the course of service, the petitioner mothered a child,

for which, she was given maternity leave for 180 days from

11.08.2017 to 06.02.2018.

4. It appears that thereafter due to some reasons, the

petitioner was unable to perform her duties as per expectation of

the respondents, thus, a notice dated 03.05.2018 followed by

notices dated 07.05.2018 and 10.05.2018 were issued to her by

the by the respondents.

5. Pursuant to notice dated 07.05.2018, the petitioner

submitted a reply and pointed out that on 05.05.2018 she met

with a vehicular accident, due to which she got fracture in her

hand and foot, for which she could neither attend the office nor

could she perform her duties.

6. The respondent No.5 was, however, not satisfied with the

response given by the petitioner and passed the impugned order

dated 23.05.2018, inter-alia, observing that petitioner's behaviour

towards the staff and higher authorities is rude and inappropriate

and that she has not shared PCTS ID/password and ID/password

for Aasha Claim, which amounts to serious irregularity and

dereliction of duties.

7. While highlighting that payment to many persons could not

be made because of the conduct of the petitioner, it was avered

that on account of petitioner's absence, the requisite work had to

be got done by outsourcing. The petitioner's contractual

engagement was thus, brought to an end, as her services were

not found satisfactory.

8. Mr. H.S. Shekhawat, learned counsel for the petitioner

argued that the respondents have suddenly got annoyed with the

[2023:RJ-JD:37300] (3 of 5) [CW-7616/2018]

petitioner and within a short span of 7 days, they issued four

notices, just to ensure that petitioner's contractual employment

could be brought to an end.

9. Mr. Shekhawat argued that on 05.05.2018, petitioner met

with an accident, due to which she could not attend the duties and

the impugned order dated 23.05.2018 being vindictive, arbitrary

and contrary to the facts and law, deserves to be set aside.

10. Mr. Gaurav Ranka, associate of Ms. Vandana Bhansali,

learned counsel for the respondent - State, on the other hand,

submitted that the petitioner has not placed on record any

documentary evidence regarding accident, which she had allegedly

met nor any evidence regarding fracture in her hand and foot has

been placed on record. She should have prayed for a leave so

that alternative arrangements be made for the work for which she

was engaged.

11. He highlighted that the petitioner has been guilty of

dereliction of duties and has refused to share the password, due

to which the respondents had to face the undesired

embarrassment for failure to make payment.

12. At the last, he submitted that in any case, the petitioner was

on contractual engagement and that too for a period of one year,

which was extended upto 28.02.2018 by mutual consent and if

her services were found unsatisfactory, the respondents were

justified in bringing to an end the contract.

13. Mr. Shekhawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the respondents have not conducted any formal enquiry

against the petitioner. In support of his assertion, he relied upon

[2023:RJ-JD:37300] (4 of 5) [CW-7616/2018]

a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case Hari Ram

Maurya Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 9 SCC 167.

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

15. True it is, that even in a short span of 7 days, the

respondent No.5 had issued four notices to the petitioner for

lapses in her duties and for her behaviour; which at the first flush

gives an indication that the respondents were annoyed with the

petitioner. However, on perusal of the order dated 23.05.2018, it

transpires that the events or the lapses, which have been

indicated in the order are for a period prior to her accident.

16. Petitioner's employment with the respondents is purely a

contractual engagement, which was admittedly for a period of one

year.

17. So far as the contention of Mr. Shekhawat that the

respondents did not conduct any formal enquiry is concerned, it is

to be noted that petitioner's engagement was purely contractual,

therefore, her services are required to be governed as per the

terms of the contract. Petitioner's case cannot be equated with

the case of the regularly selected candidates.

18. So far as principles of natural justice are concerned,

regardless of the terms of the contract, the respondents have

observed the same by issuing notices. The notice dated

07.05.2018, was duly been responded by the petitioner.

19. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the requisite

compliance of principles of natural justice have been made by the

respondents. This Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India cannot record its own satisfaction about

[2023:RJ-JD:37300] (5 of 5) [CW-7616/2018]

delinquency of the petitioner and her conduct during the

engagement aforesaid.

20. Having regard to the nature of the employment, this Court is

of the view that the respondents have committed no illegality or

infirmity in disengaging the petitioner on account of her conduct

because in such employment, it is the satisfaction of the

employer, which is paramount.

21. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

22. Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 46-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)