Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mohit Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 1 June, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 3401 of 2023
.
Decided on: 01.06.2023
Mohit Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Bhushan & Mr. Sat Prakash,
Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Y. W.
Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.G., Mr. Ramakant
Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs., Mr.
J. S. Guleria, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy.
A.Gs. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer,
for respondents-State.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. J. S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner was engaged as a Manager (Marketing) Programmer on outsources basis on contract on 03.07.2020 and the same was expired on 02.07.2021. The respondent-Department renewed the contract on 29.07.2021 initially for a period of six months and thereafter on 01.01.2022 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2023 20:31:00 :::CIS 2 extended the same upto 30.06.2022. The contract was thereafter again renewed and it was lastly renewed on 03.01.2023.
.
3 Now vide an e-mail dated 18.03.2023 the services of the petitioner have been ordered to be terminated and aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following reliefs:-
I) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to renewed the contract period fo the services and further directed to allow the petitioner to continue with the services as Manager (Marketing) with the respondent No. 3 till the completion of the project period is 10 years from March, 2018 to March, 2028 in the interest o justice and fair play.
4. According to the petitioner, action of the respondents in not extending the contract of the petitioner is violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Even otherwise the action of the respondents is not sustainable, as it is more than settled that any contract employee cannot be substituted by another employee appointed on contractual basis.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2023 20:31:00 :::CIS 35. A perusal of the impugned e-mail dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure P-8) would go to indicate that the contract of the .
petitioner has not been extended as his services have not been found to be satisfactory.
6. Discipline is the hallmark of every employee and, in case, an employee is not ready to subject himself/herself to discipline, then obviously he/she not only invites the wrath of his employer but is also liable to be proceeded against.
7. Working satisfactorily is also part of discipline after all an employee is expected to discharge his duties with complete integrity which would take in its sweep probity, innocence, truthfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, he should have depicted sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values.
8. It would be noticed that the services of the petitioner, which were on contract basis, that too, on outsource basis and have been discontinued because his services were not found to be satisfactory and the agency, in turn, has been directed to make a suitable replacement without naming any person(s), which by itself negates the allegations of the petitioner of biasness or malafides or even favourtism.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2023 20:31:00 :::CIS 49. The action of the respondent in the given background cannot be termed to be either illegal much less .
contrary or even discriminatory so as to be violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Virender Singh) 1st June, 2023 Judge (sanjeev) ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2023 20:31:00 :::CIS