AVINASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged the termination order, Annexure P -5. In addition, he prayed that the withheld salary be paid to him.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by contract dated 16.1.2010 (Annexure P -2). His services were terminated on 21.4.2011. Before terminating the services, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Clause 11 of the contract which provides that the contract can be terminated by giving one month's notice by either side is not also fulfilled. It is contended that the petitioner continued beyond 15.1.2011 and salary has not been paid to him. For this purpose, the petitioner has filed pages of attendance register.

(3.) SHRI Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, submits that the petitioner has no right to continue beyond the period of contract. If he has worked beyond contract, he may prefer a representation for payment of salary, which will be decided by respondent No.4 within 30 days.