Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5823 of 2018 Petitioner :- Adhivesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
The petitioner was engaged on contract basis on the post of Superintendent in the Disabled Empowerment Department on honorarium. As to when the petitioner was engaged on contract basis has not been disclosed in the writ petition nor the terms of the contract has been filed with the writ petition. It is not disputed that the petitioner was working on contract basis. Whatever right the petitioner has it flows from the contract. In the absence of the contract, the terms and condition of the contract cannot be determined. However, by the impugned order, the service of the petitioner has been dispensed with and the contract has been terminated. It is pointed out by the order dated 8.12.2017 that earlier also the petitioner was given a warning with regard to his functioning and now the order has been passed terminating his service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been passed without holding enquiry and the order is stigmatic and will affect the future prospect of the petitioner with regard to the employment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision in the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P.& others 2000 (3) E.S.C.1625. The said decision is with regard to the dismissal of a probationer under the U.P.Police Regulation. In the present case, the petitioner's right would be that which flows from the contract. In case, there is any breach of contract, the petitioner is at liberty to file a suit for that purpose and all these issues can be raised in the suit proceedings.The writ petition for the aforesaid purpose cannot be maintained and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 VPC