PRADEEP KUMR RAGHAV Vs. TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned Office Order of 10th November, 2017 (Annexure P/18) respondent has intimated petitioner that his contract has come to an end and extension of contract is not possible and that petitioner may apply afresh, if any such post is advertised in future.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner assails impugned order (Annexure P/18) on the ground that Oman Project, where petitioner was employed on contractual basis since the year 2009, is still continuing and so, petitioner's contract ought to have been renewed and that it was last renewed till 30th June, 2017. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner cannot be arbitrarily relieved, as Clauses-12 & 13 of the Contract of Service For Temporary Project of 11th March, 2010 (Annexure P/3 colly) clearly provides that petitioner's contractual employment can be terminated when the project comes to an end or if the contractual employee is found to be not performing the functions suitably and in any case, either one month's notice in writing or one month's salary in lieu thereof, ought to be given. It is submitted that petitioner has not been issued any such notice nor any salary in lieu of the notice period was tendered to petitioner and so, the impugned relieving is not in consonance with the terms of employment and that the Oman Project is still continuing. Reliance is placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anil Lamba & ors. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.,2017 SCCOnLine(Del) 7382 to submit that in view of Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors., (1992) AIR SC 2130, one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees, unless there are valid reasons for doing so i.e. some misconduct is attributable to such contractual employee. Attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure P/19 to point out that respondent has issued a fresh Advertisement to prepare a panel of qualified and experienced candidates for the post of Engineers on contract basis and the maximum age prescribed is 40 years. So, it is submitted that the impugned Office Order of 10th November, 2017 (Annexure P/18) deserves to be set aside and respondent be directed to continue with petitioner's service either in Oman Project or anywhere else.

(3.) Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Advocate, appears on advance notice and submits on instructions that the existing Pan African E Network Project i.e. the Oman Project in question, has been upgraded under the new name of e-Vidyabharati and e-Aarogybharati but this integrated project has not been launched and therefore, upon completion of petitioner's contractual service, he has been relieved and if petitioner applies in response to the fresh Advertisement (Annexure P/19), then he will be duly considered, as and when the aforesaid upgraded project is launched. Learned counsel for respondent submits that in view of a later Supreme Court's decision in Gridco Limited & Anr. Vs. Sadananda Doloi & Ors., (2011) 15 SCC 16, petitioner has no vested right to continue with the contractual service after the project in question is no longer operational.