KHALIL KUMAR Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

(2.) Petitioner was appointed on contract basis which tenure appointment as is evident from the documents. His grievance is that respondents have resorted to engage some other person on contract basis. Such action is impermissible in view of the decision cited vide Annexure P5 read with CWP-13555-2013, CWP-2346-2013 and CWP-1034-2012. It was submitted that in view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision that contract employee cannot be replaced by another contract appointee. Further he is entitled to seek a direction to the respondents restraining respondents to not to terminate his services. Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others versus Anita and another, 2016 8 SCC 293 in para Nos. 15 to 17 held as under:-

(3.) Undisputed fact is that petitioner is a contract appointee and which is a tenure appointment and he has no right to continue. In the case of Shilpa Jindal verus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others reported in,2016 SCCOnLine(P&H) 12112, a Division bench of this court in para Nos. 29, 31, 32, 35 and 36 held as under:-