P N CHOPRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After his retirement from the Government service, the petitioner was appointed by the Indian Council of Historical Research (Respondent No.2) as the Chief Editor 'Towards Freedom' project on a honorarium of Rs. 1500.00 per month. The petitioner's appointment was purely contractual as per terms and conditions contained in the written Agreement dated 20th September, 1985 between the petitioner and the respondent No 2. Clause 4 of the said agreement reads as follows:-

(2.) In terms of Clause 4 mentioned herein above, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide office Order dated 26th February, 1988. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of termination in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Krishnamani, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that Clause 4 of the Agreement dated 20th September, 1985 in terms of which the services of the petitioner have been terminated was arbitrary as no reasons for termination of services were required to be given under this clause. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on a Supreme Court Judgement reported in. AIR 1986 SC 1571, Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs Brojo Nath Ganguly. We, however, find no merit in this contention as the ratio of the aforesaid judgement is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case of Brojo Noth (supra) Rule 9 (1) which empowered the Corporation to terminate services of the permanent employees without giving any reason was declared void as being opposed to public policy and also ultravires of Article 14 of the Constitution. But in the present case. the petitioner was not a parmanent employee of the respondent Council. On the contrary he was appointed after his retirement from the Government service and his appointment was purely contractual. As stated herein above, his services were terminated in terms of Clause 4 of the Agreement. In fact, the present case is covered by a recent Judgement of the Supreme Court reported in (1991) I Supreme Court Cases, 691, Stale of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the competent authority can terminate the services of an employee in exercise of its powers under the terms of the contract as well as under the relevant rules applicable to a temporary employee. Here we may also point out that as stated by the respondent in CM 3275/92, the project Towards Freedom for which the petitioner was appointed has come to an end on 31st March, 1992.