1. Heard Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State respondent and also perused the record.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS) in T.B. Centre, District Sitapur on contract basis vide letter dated 7.12.2002, and joined in the office of Senior District Tuberculosis Officer, Sitapur on 15.5.2003. The period of engagement was one year, which was to be extended subject to satisfactory performance. The contract was renewed till 14.9.2010, but vide order dated 21,4,2010, the contract of petitioner was terminated by District Tuberculosis Officer/Sadasya Sachiv, District Tuberculosis Control Samiti, Sitapur. This led to filing of this writ petition.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner termination order is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. The services were terminated without giving one month's notice as well as without calling any explanation.
4. It was submitted by the learned standing counsel that contract was executed between the petitioner and District Tuberculosis Society, Sitapur, District Sitapur (Annexure CA - 1) in which it has been mentioned that contract will have to be ceased to operate and stands terminated from the date of expiry of one year from the date of its execution by both the parties, and may also be terminated earlier before expiry of one year with one month's notice or wages in lieu thereof and without any compensation of remaining period (vide para 12 of the Contract). The engagement of petitioner was renewed from time to time on yearly basis. Lastly, on 17.2.2009, from 15.9.2009 to 14.9.2010, but lately, it was found that he was not taking interest in the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme and was becoming indisciplined, and was not obeying the orders passed by the higher authorities, not submitting reports on time, indulging in misconduct. He was warned several times, but there was no improvement in his work and conduct and due to this the petitioner's contractual services were terminated with immediate effect, and he was paid one month's wages amounting to Rs.12,000/- vide cheque no.349031 dated 18.5.2010 in lieu of notice period. It was further submitted that petitioner has not specifically denied in rejoinder affidavit that one month's wages have been paid to him through cheque.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in the cases of Prabhu Dayal Birari v. M.P. Rajya Nagrik Aapurti Nigam Ltd., 2000 (18) LCD 1422; Pati Raj v. State of U.P. and others, 1996 (14) LCD 1123; and Bhuwan Chandra Joshi v. State of U.P. and another, 1993 (11) LCD 627.
6. In the case of Bhuwan Chandra Joshi v. State of U.P. and another (supra) the Apex Court has also struck down the termination order on the ground that employee was neither given one month's notice, nor one month's salary in lieu of such notice.
7. In the case of Pati Raj v. State of U.P. and others (supra) petitioner's termination was challenged on the ground that order of termination is not in consonance with the provisions contained in Rule 3 of U.P. Temporary Government Servant Termination of Service Rules, 1975. Thus, the Court has struck down the terminaiton order on the ground that termination was not followed by payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice.
8. In the case of Bhuwan Chandra Joshi v. State of U.P. and another (supra) the petitioner was working on the post of orderly in U.P. Waqf Vikas Nigam Ltd. In that case, the petitioner was appointed onregular post of orderly. In the light of these facts, this Court has been satisfied with the material on record that the ground of unsuitability appears to be arbitrary and without any basis, and then, termination order was quashed.
9. In the instant case, in order to resolve the controversy as to whether one month's salary in lieu of notice was given to the petitioner or not, it will be prudent to reproduce the averments made in the counter and rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties. In para 6 of the counter affidavit, it has been specifically mentioned "it is prudent to mention that as per the term of contract, he was paid one month's wages amounting to Rs.12,000/- vide cheque no.349031 dated 18.5.2010 in lieu of notice period".
10. Against this specific averments, there is no specific denial in the rejoinder affidavit, but it has been mentioned in para 6 of rejoinder affidavit that "alleged one month wages has been paid through the cheque is after thought just to fill up the legal lacuna, after filing of writ petition and the same was deposited in the account of petitioner on 25.5.2010".
11. It is prudent to mention that order of termination was passed on 21.4.2010, and the amount of month's salary was paid through no.349031 dated 18.5.2010, and the amount, admittedly, was deposited in the petitioner's account on 25.5.2010. When the petitioner accepted the amount and did not return it, then he is stopped from saying that he was not paid one month's salary in lieu of termination order.
12. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 a five Judges Bench of the Apex Court has held that if it is contractual appointment, it comes to an end at the end of contract. If it were an engagement or appointment on daily basis or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued.
13. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arun Govil, AIR 1990 SC 458 it has been held that where appointment is in the nature of contract, then after termination, he is not entitled for reinstatement.
14. Admittedly, petitioner's appointment is on contractual basis, and in the writ petition, the petitioner has mentioned the rules of termination in which it has been mentioned that contract of appointment can be terminated from either side with one month's notice.
15. From the above facts, it is amply clear that the decisions, referred by the petitioner's counsel, are of no help to the petitioner on the ground (1) the petitioner was a contractual employee, and (2) one month's salary was paid to him after his termination of contract.
16. In view of above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- September 5, 2014 Anupam (Arvind Kumar Tripathi - II)