SATISH JOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Sh. Satish Joshi impugning the letter dated 17.4.2012 terminating his contractual services w.e.f 17.4.2012. Challenge in effect is also laid to the communication dated 2.5.2012 of the employer/respondent No.2-National Project Coordinator which states that services of the petitioner were terminated on account of inadequate performance.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued before this Court that though the petitioner was a contractual employee in terms of General Service Agreement dated 1.9.2008, however, the service agreement was to be ordinarily extended till the completion of the project inasmuch as respondent No.2 is a project entity, and employees who have taken employment with respondent No.2/project entity cannot be terminated at the whims and fancies of the respondent No.2 although the project continues. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the stand of the respondent No.2 that the services were terminated on account of inadequate performance as stated in the letter dated 2.5.2012 is really an afterthought, because the said reasons are not found mentioned in the communication dated 17.4.2012. In any case, it is argued that the respondent No.2 was bound to follow the principles of audi alteram partem before terminating the services of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner was appointed through regular recruitment process as a Manager (Finance and Administration) as the petitioner satisfied the requirements of being a Chartered Accountant with 10-15 years experience. It is finally argued that respondent No.2 being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot act arbitrarily by terminating the services of the petitioner, although the project of the respondent No.2 continues, much less by violating the principles of natural justice.

(3.) On behalf of respondent No.2, great stress is laid out on the aspect of contractual employment of the petitioner. It is argued that the last extension was given till 31.12.2011 and whereafter no extension has been given and therefore terminating the services of the petitioner vide communication dated 17.4.2012 taking the period expiring on 17.4.2012 is perfectly justified. Reliance is also placed upon the communication dated 2.5.2012 which gave reasons for not continuing the services of the petitioner.