Jharkhand High CourtMoti Upadhyay vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 August, 2022Author:Anubha Rawat ChoudharyBench:Anubha Rawat ChoudharyIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n\n                                W.P.(S) No. 1142 of 2010\n\n                Moti Upadhyay, son of Sri Jagdish Upadhyay, Resident of Argaghat,\n                Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District- Giridih.\n                                                               ...   ...  Petitioner\n                                          Versus\n                1. The State of Jharkhand\n                2. The Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi. New\n                   Cooperative Building Shyami Colony Doranda, Ranchi\n                3. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa\n                4. The District Programme Officer, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa\n                   Dist. Garhwa\n                5. The District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. and\n                   Dist. Garhwa                         ...        ...   Respondents\n\n                                         With\n                                W.P.(S) No. 2786 of 2010\n\n            Hira Lal Sinha son of Muni Lal Mandal, Resident of Sudha Awas,\n            Mohalla Purandaha, P.O. & P.S. B. Deoghar, District- Deoghar\n                                                        ...      ...     Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n            1. The State of Jharkhand\n            2. The Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi, Dist.\n               Ranchi\n            3. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, Dist-Garhwa, Jharkhand\n            4. The District Superintendent of Education, Dist-Garhwa, Jharkhand\n                                                  ...       ...       Respondents\n                                     ---CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY---For the Petitioner       : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocate\n                                       Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate\n            For the Resp.- State     : Mr. Jayant F. Toppo, Advocate\n                                       [in W.P.(S) No. 1142 of 2010]\n                                       Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan Nath Shahdeo,\n                                       Advocate\n                                       [in W.P.(S) No. 2786 of 2010]\n            For the Resp. -JEPC      : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate---07/22.08.2022          Learned counsel for the parties are present.2.     W.P.(S) No. 1142 of 2010 has been filed for the following\n                reliefs:"For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or\n                     a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of the office order no.\n                     430 dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure-4) issued by the Director,\n                     Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi (Respondent no.1) the by which the service of the petitioner has been dismissed\n                     without giving any notice to the petitioner or without complying\n                     the provisions under rules and regulations prescribed for the\n                     employees like the petitioner under the Bihar Education Project2(J.E.P.C. Service); and the petitioner further prays for issuance\n     of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature\n     of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the\n     petitioner to continue as Assistant Programme Officer at Garhwa\n     and/or      for     further   issuance    of    an    appropriate\n     writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and\n     proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the\n     interest of justice."3.     W.P.(S) No. 2786 of 2010 has been filed for the following\nreliefs:"For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or\n     a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in\n     Memo No. 491 dated 24.2.2010 (Annexure-6) issued by the\n     Administrative Officer by which the service of the petitioner has\n     been terminated with immediate effect without giving any notice\n     to the petitioner or without complying the provisions under Rules\n     and Regulations prescribed for the employees like the petitioner\n     under Bihar Education Project Service Regulations as adopted;\n     and the petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate\n     writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus\n     commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to\n     continue as Assistant Engineer till the project for which the\n     petitioner was appointed continues; and/or for further issuance\n     of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships\n     may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the\n     case and in the interest of justice."4.     The learned counsel for the parties submit that since common\npoints are involved in the present case, therefore, these cases have\nbeen tagged together.5.     Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in W.P.(S) No.\n2786 of 2010 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer vide\norder dated 24.09.2007 under Jharkhand Education Project Council\nand the petitioner is aggrieved by the order no. 491 dated 24.02.2010\n(Annexure-6) whereby the services of the petitioner has been\nterminated with immediate effect without giving any notice to the\npetitioner and without complying with the provisions of Rules and\nRegulations prescribed for the employees like the petitioner. The\nlearned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is guided by the\nservice regulation as per the Clause 6 of the letter of appointment and\ntherefore, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated\nin the manner it has been done in the present case.6.     The learned counsel has also submitted that similar letter of\nappointment was given to the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1142 of 2010\nand in the said case, similar order of termination as contained in office\norder no. 430 dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure-4) has been issued.37.     With regard to the order of termination in W.P.(S) No. 2786 of\n2010, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been\nterminated on the basis of certain allegation without giving an\nopportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.8.     The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a\njudgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2022) 6\nSCC 346 (K. Ragupathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others) and\nhas referred to para 14 thereof which is quoted as follows:"14. It could thus be seen that though the communication of the\n      said University dated 12-8-2014 states that the appellant's\n      contractual period has expired, in the facts of the present case,\n      it would reveal that his services were discontinued on account\n      of the allegation made against him by the Dean of the said\n      University. Since even according to the said University, though\n      the employment was contractual but the employee was entitled\n      to get all the benefits of a regular employee, we find that in the\n      facts of the present case, the appellant's services could not have\n      been terminated without following the principles of natural\n      justice. We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be\n      allowed on this short ground."9.    The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents\nhave vehemently opposed the prayer and have submitted that on the\nface of the letter of appointment in both the writ petitions it is apparent\nthat the appointment was made on purely contractual basis for the\nperiod till 30.09.2008. The counsels submit that no letter for extension\nof the period has been brought on record and the orders for\ndisengagement of the petitioners through the impugned orders are\nsimpliciter orders of termination and the impugned orders also provide\nfor payment of notice period. The learned counsels submit that the\nservices of the petitioners have not been terminated on account of\nallegation, rather it is a case of simpliciter termination.10.    After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and\nconsidering the facts and circumstances of these cases, it is not in\ndispute that similar letters of appointment were issued to both the writ\npetitioners which were dated 24.09.2007 and 25.09.2007 in W.P.(S)\nNo. 2786 of 2010 and in W.P.(S) No. 1142 of 2010 respectively and\nthe appointment was for a period till 30.09.2008. Admittedly, no order\nas such has been passed extending the period of engagement of the\npetitioners beyond 30.09.2008. The petitioners were entitled to\npayment of consolidated monthly emolument as per the contract.\nHowever, it appears that the respondents had taken some work from4the petitioners and ultimately, vide impugned order dated 19.02.2010\nin W.P.(S) NO. 1142 of 2010 and 24.02.2010 in W.P.(S) No. 2786 of\n2010, the services of the petitioners have been discontinued and it has\nalso been directed to make payment of any arrear and also for the\nnotice period of one month.W.P.(S) NO. 1142 of 201011.   On the perusal of the impugned order of disengagement in\nW.P.(S) NO. 1142 of 2010, the same is a simple order of\ndisengagement and there is no iota of any allegation against the\npetitioner. Considering the fact that the engagement of the petitioner\nwas purely contractual and as per the order of engagement itself, it\nwas till 30.09.2008 and there was no extension, there was no\nrequirement of following any principles of natural justice prior to\ndisengaging the petitioner.       The petitioner had no legal right to\ncontinue to work beyond 30.09.2008 and merely because the\nrespondents had taken some work beyond the contractual period the\nsame does not create any right to continue.12.   The judgement passed in (2022) 6 SCC 346 (K. Ragupathi Vs.\nState of Uttar Pradesh and Others) does not apply to the facts and\ncircumstances of this case as neither the discontinuation of the service\nof the petitioner was based on allegation nor the same is stigmatic in\nany manner whatsoever nor it is the case of the petitioner that having\nworked beyond the contractual period the petitioner has acquired any\nright to continue or was to be treated and paid as regular employee.W.P.(S) No. 2786 of 201013.   On the perusal of the impugned order of disengagement in\nW.P.(S) No. 2786 of 2010, it appears that the same is also a simple\norder of disengagement which reflects dissatisfaction with regard to\nthe work of the petitioner on account of irresponsible attitude towards\nwork and dereliction of duty and is neither based on any proved\nallegation nor the same is stigmatic in any manner. The clause 4 of the\nletter of appointment clearly states that the contract can be terminated\nif the activities are not found satisfactory and in this regards the\ndecision of the authority shall be final. The impugned order has been\npassed in consonance with clause 4 of the letter of appointment. As\nper the Regulation 7 of Bihar Education Project Service Regulations,\nthe appointment by contract shall be governed by the terms of the5contract. As per regulation 15 of the aforesaid regulations, which deals\n         with termination of service, the appointment for specified period\n         expires on expiry of such period unless the appointment is extended\n         for a further period.Admittedly in the instant case the initial period of\n         engagement has expired and there has been no extension. Considering\n         the fact that the engagement of the petitioner was purely contractual\n         and as per the order of engagement itself, it was till 30.09.2008 and\n         there was no extension, there was no requirement of following any\n         principles of natural justice prior to disengaging the petitioner. The\n         petitioner had no legal right to continue to work beyond 30.09.2008\n         and merely because the respondents had taken some work beyond the\n         contractual period, the same does not create any right to continue. The\n         judgement passed in (2022) 6 SCC 346 (K. Ragupathi Vs. State of\n         Uttar Pradesh and Others) does not apply to the facts and\n         circumstances of this case as neither the discontinuation of the service\n         of the petitioner was based on any proved allegation nor the same is\n         stigmatic nor it is the case of the petitioner that having worked beyond\n         the contractual period the petitioner has acquired any right to continue\n         or was to be treated and paid as regular employee. The impugned\n         order has been passed on account of unsatisfactory performance due to\n         irresponsible attitude towards work and dereliction of duty which does\n         not call for any interference underArticle 226of the constitution of\n         India. The admissible dues including the amount for notice period, has\n         also been directed to be paid.14.    Consequently, no interference is called for underArticle 226of\n         the Constitution of India in the impugned orders and both these writ\n         petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, it is observed that if\n         any admissible amount is due, the same should be immediately paid to\n         the petitioners.15.    Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)\nPankaj