DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Dr. Deepak Kumar has impugned order dated 03. 07. 2006 informing him that the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to terminate his contract of service pursuant to which he was working in Central Jail Hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination order is stigmatic and in this regard he relies upon information furnished to him under the Right to information Act, 2005. He also relies upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/gnctd. In this connection learned counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Supreme court in 'parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India' reported in 1958 SCR 828 and a decision of a Single Judge of this court in 'asha vij (Smt.) Vs. Chief of Army Staff' 1998 (7) SLR 193.

(2.) THE letter dated 3. 7. 2006 terminating the service of the petitioner reads as under :

(3.) THE petitioner was appointed on contractual basis vide letter dated 16-1-2004 the said appointment was only for a period of 6 months or till regular incumbent was appointed. It was specifically stated in the appointment letter that the appointment was ad hoc and would not be counted for any claim for regular appointment. The said appointment was thereafter renewed from time to time but the last renewal was up to 30th September, 2006. It is an admitted case that the contract was terminated prematurely on 3. 7. 2006. The date 30th September, 2006 has already expired.