Jharkhand High Court
Kumari Arati vs Mecon Limited on 10 July, 2018
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: Amitav K. Gupta, D.N. Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No.8298 of 2017
with
L.P.A. No.515 of 2017
Kumari Arati, D/o Sri Jawahar Lal, now posted Assistant Project Engineer, in
the Department of D.C. & C in MECON Ltd., P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda,
District Ranchi, resident of Qr. No.132, MECON Colony, Shyamli Colony, P.O. &
P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi ......Appellant
Versus
1. MECON Limited, A Government of India Enterprises, through its
Chairman cum Managing Director, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi
2. Dy. General Manager, TS/Electrical, MECON Ltd., P.O. & P.S. Doranda,
District-Ranchi
3.
3. Dy. General Manager (I/C) APDRP, MECON Ltd., P.O. & P.S. Doranda,
District-Ranchi
4. Director, Commercial, MECON Ltd., P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi
5. Sr. Personnel Officer, MECON Ltd., P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi
...... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------
For the Appellant : IN PERSON
For the Respondents : Mr. K.B. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amitabh, Advocate
----------------------------
06/Dated 10 July, 2018
th
Oral Order:
Per: D.N. Patel, A.C.J:
I.A. No.8298 of 2017
1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of a day in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, especially in para nos.3 and 4 thereof, there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay.
3. We, therefore, condone the delay of a day in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
4. I.A. No.8298 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.
L.P.A. No.515 of 2017 25. The party in person has argued out the case at length and submitted that as per appointment conditions, the appointment of this appellant (original petitioner) was permanent in nature. This party in person has taken this Court to the fine nicety of the order which is dated 20 th September, 2006 - the appointment letter, especially the condition no.11(i) and 11(iv). We have perused these conditions and these conditions have nothing to do with condition no.1 at page no.48 of Annexure-1 which reads as under:
"Your appointment will be on contract basis for a period of 1 (one) year from the date of joining on a Consolidated Salary of Rs.12000/- (fixed) per month. Besides this no other allowances/benefits will be admissible. However, you will be entitled to CPF as per MECON Provident Fund Rules. For PF deduction, your basic pay shall be treated as Rs.7000/-.
You will be on probation for a period of 3 (three) months, which may be extended or curtailed without notice at the discretion of the Company."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Looking to the terms and conditions of the employment, especially condition no.12 at page no.50 of the Letters Patent Appeal which reads as under:
"12. Termination of Service:
a) i) On completion of the period of the Contract or the tenure of the project for which you have been appointed.
ii) At any time by the Company without any previous notice if the Company is satisfied on medical evidence that you are unfit and/or likely to continue to be unfit for efficient discharge of your duties for a considerable time for reasons of ill health, provided always that the decision of the Company that you are unfit and/or likely to continue to be unfit shall be final and conclusively binding on you.
iii) On adverse remarks during probation period by Controlling Officer."
(emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid conditions also there is an automatic cessation of the services and there is no need to pass an order at Annexure-2.
7. In view of the aforesaid appointment letter, it appears that this appellant was appointed only for a period of one year with a consolidated salary of Rs.12000/- and with some other perks. It has been argued out by the party in person that looking to the nature of the perks, the appointment is permanent. This is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons that:
(a) Perks never makes the appointment permanent,
(b) condition no.1 of the appointment letter which is quoted hereinabove, is explicitly clearer and is unambiguous, 3
(c) The appointment was for a period of one year. Thus, it is a contractual appointment and only for a limited period,
(d) Thus, once the aforesaid period is over there shall be automatic cessation of the service. In fact, there is no need to pass any termination order dated 6th September, 2006 which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal,
(e) Whenever any contractual appointment has been given, no sooner did the contractual period is over, there shall be an automatic termination of the services, unless, the services has been extended by the employer, and
(f) In the facts of the present case, the services of this party in person has not been extended at all, looking to Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal.
8. Thus, it appears that the contractual period of the employment is automatically over upon completion of one year, from the date she has joined the services. Annexure-2 is not a termination of the service order at all. It is an intimation to the appellant that by the efflux of time, the employer- employee relationship is over. Thus, Annexure-2 cannot be levelled as termination order. In the facts of the present case, the employer has not terminated the services of the appellant, but, the efflux of time has terminated the services of this appellant. Annexure-2 is nothing, but, just an intimation that your service period is over. In fact, no reason is required for writing Annexure-2, i.e., intimation.
9. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5905 of 2006 dated 25 th August, 2017. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge, hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(D.N. Patel, A.C.J.) (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) NKC/Tarun