Gujarat High Court
Dushyantkumar Amrutbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4563 of 2025
=====================================================
DUSHYANTKUMAR AMRUTBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA DAVDA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep H. Sindhi appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda appearing for the respondent - State.
2. By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-
"[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit & allow this petition;
[B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned illegal, & arbitrary Communication Denying Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined Renewal of contract by Letter No. CRD/0207/09/2023 DATED 16/09/2023, issued by the Respondent Authorities being illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law, in the interest of Justice; [Annexure - A] [C] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on his original post and position on the same terms and conditions that he was originally appointed, in the interest of Justice;
[D] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass order directing the Respondent to staying the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned Communication Denying Renewal of contract by Letter No. CRD/0207/09/2023 dated 16/09/2023, in the interest of Justice; [Annexure - A] [E] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to declare the action of the respondent authorities in passing the impugned Communication Denying Renewal of contract by Letter No. CRD/0207/09/2023 dated 16/09/2023 amount to violation of valuable right of the petitioner as enshrined under the provisions of the Constitution of India more particularly of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of Justice;
[F] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of Justice."
3. The case of the petitioner is that the Page 2 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined petitioner was appointed on the post of MIS (Coordinator) purely on temporary and purely on ad-hoc and contractual basis for a period of eleven months on a fixed pay of Rs.7500/- vide order dated 20.01.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner services were continued by extending the contact from time to time and according to the petitioner, it was decided that the petitioner shall continue to serve till the scheme MANREGA would remain in force. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents alleged that at the time of inspection of the four Taluka Panchayats of Mahisagar District, irregularities were found between 2016 to 2019, wherein the payments were directly deposited in the accounts of the vendors by preparing bogus bills and on the basis of the aforesaid inquiries, four FIRs were registered in Mahisagar District for the single offence. The petitioner was named in all four FIRs. According to learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi though the petitioner was not named in any of the Page 3 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined aforesaid FIR on the various date of January and February 2023 was arrested in connection with those FIRs wherein between April and May, the petitioner was bailed out. The details of FIR, date of arrest of the petitioner and the date on which bail was granted is placed on record by way of a chart by the petitioner which is reproduced as under :-
Sr. Date of CR. NO. Arrest
No. FIR Date/
Bail Date
1 21/12/2020 11187006201565of Arrest :
2020 21/01/2023
Lunawada Police Bail :
Station 06/04/2023
District :
Mahisagar
2 21/12/2020 11187008200903 of Arrest :
2020 28/01/2023
Virpur Police Bail :
Station 11/04/2023
District :
Mahisagar
3 21/12/2020 11187002201128 of Arrest :
2020 28/01/2023
Balsinor Police Bail :
Station 11/04/2023
District :
Mahisagar
4 21/12/2020 11187007201485 of Arrest :
2020 13/02/2023
Santrampur Police Bail :
Station 16/05/2023
Page 4 of 24
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
District :
Mahisagar
4. According to the petitioner, it is on account of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIRs that the petitioner could not remain present and therefore on the ground of absenteeism, the petitioner services were terminated vide order dated 16.09.2023 and the aforesaid order is under challenge by way of this petition.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi submitted that in respect of other persons who were named in the FIR and their services were terminated in the year 2020 itself approached this Court by way of various petitions. One of them being Special Civil Application No.8547 of 2021 decided on 16.02.2022 in case of Kamleshbhai Lalabhai Parmar Versus Secretary, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held the termination to be stigmatic and quashed and set aside the order of termination. Similar was the case in respect of another petitioner named Page 5 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined Jamal Daudbhai S/o Iqubalbhai Versus State of Gujarat who was the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.8606 of 2022 which was also decided on 17.08.2022 an order of termination was quashed and set aside. Reliance was placed upon common oral judgment in case of Bariya Pravinbhai Shanabhai Versus State of Gujarat and others in Special Civil Application No.4111 of 2024 with Special Civil Application No. 12694 of 2022 delivered by the author of this very judgment whereby also in case of the persons named in the FIR was terminated by referring the FIR in the termination order and the termination was held to be stigmatic by this Court and therefore, it was prayed by learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi appearing for the petitioner that the present petitioner also was arrested pursuant to the FIR and was bailed out and therefore, he could not remain present during interregnum period for 121 days and therefore, he is also required to be treated similarly. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi Page 6 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined prayed for issuance of notice and to allow the petition thereafter.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi also submitted that before passing the order of termination, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and therefore also the order is stigmatic and therefore, the petitioner is required to be reinstated. Learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi submitted that though the other persons named in the FIR were considered and their termination was held to be stigmatic, the case of the present petitioner was not considered on the same line and therefore, also on the ground of similar treatment, the petitioner is required to be reinstated. Lastly, it was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi that in view of decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 07.06.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8781 of 2017 and allied matters in case of Jayeshkumar Vishnubhai Patel and 5 others Versus State of Gujarat and Page 7 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined others, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by relying upon paragraph No.8 of the said judgment, it was stated that in similar set of facts a contractual employee was directed to be continued in service till the scheme continues by the Co-ordinate Bench. However, the respondents have acted in a different manure in case of present petitioner and terminated his services on the ground of absenteeism. By making above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi prayed for allowing the petition. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi also submitted that as soon as the petitioner preferred an application for contempt being Misc. Civil Application No. 1604 of 2023 in Special Civil Application No. 8781 of 2017 after the aforesaid application for contempt was filed, the order of termination was passed against the present petitioner as a counterblast to the contempt proceedings.
Page 8 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda appearing for the respondent - State vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the facts of the present petition is different than the facts of the cases which are annexed along with the petition and relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda submitted that when a termination order is challenged on the ground of the order being stigmatic what is important is to consider the language of order of termination. 6.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda submitted that as can be seen from the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in respect of concerned employees who were named in the FIR and their termination was based on registration of FIR against them and the Co- ordinate Bench has specifically observed that by referring the FIR in the order of termination their services were terminated on the ground of Page 9 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined registration of FIR and therefore considering that the order was held to be stigmatic by the Co-ordinate Bench and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated.
6.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda also pointed out that even while doing so a full-fledged inquiry was allowed to be held against the concerned employee, it was pointed out from the above decision that the Co-ordinate Bench categorically held that the respondents are not precluded from initiating action against the petitioner qua incident in question or termination in accordance with law. 6.3 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda submitted that in the instant case, the order of termination does not refer to registration of any FIR but refers to only the ground of absenteeism being the basis of terminating the services of the petitioner. Page 10 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined 6.4 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda submitted that a termination on the ground of absenteeism cannot be said to be a stigmatic termination in view of decision of this Court dated 27.01.2025 in Special Civil Application No.5939 of 2023 in case of Dhirenbhai Prahladji Thakor Versus State of Gujarat and others, wherein on a similar ground of absenteeism when the services of the petitioner was terminated, this Court had by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of West Bengal Versus Tapas Roy reported in 2006 (6) SCC 453 has held that such termination would not be stigmatic and it cannot be said to be a stigmatic termination an order of termination was upheld. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda therefore submitted that in view of above clear position of law, the order impugned cannot be said to be stigmatic termination and therefore, even if the similarly situated persons have succeeded, the present petition must fail for Page 11 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined the simple reason that the termination of the persons who were named in the FIR was based on a reference of FIR in the termination order whereas in the instant case it is only absenteeism which is referred to in the order and which the basis for terminating the services of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6.5 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda, thereafter submitted that even otherwise the order of termination was passed on 16.09.2023 which is sought to be challenged only in the year 2025. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda also relied upon a decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.03.2022 in case of Gohil Kuldipsinh Chhanubhai and 5 others Versus State of Gujarat and 2 others in Special Civil Application No. 8436 of 2018 and allied matters, wherein in paragraph No.10 while summarizing the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Page 12 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined Co-ordinate Bench has observed that a contractual employee has no right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time, on the basis of aforesaid judgment, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda prayed for dismissal of this petition.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. Upon perusal of record, I found that the order of termination dated 16.09.2023 which is a short order in vernacular language and the translation of operating part of the order reads as under :-
"Sir, This is to inform you that in respect of subject cited above that you were serving as MIS Coordinator in this office, your contract after 31.08.2022 has not been renewed but since you have worked in this office up to 20.01.2023, the salary for the said period is already paid to Page 13 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined you. Thereafter, you have remained absent without even informing anyone from 21.01.2023 till 22.05.2023 (i.e. 121 days) and therefore, on account of continuous absenteeism, your contract is not required to be renewed that you may please note.
Sd/-"
8. The aforesaid order of termination would indicate that the petitioners services were terminated on account of absenteeism and not on account of his arrest or his alleged involvement in respect of four FIRs in respect of alleged involvement in respect of offence registered vide four different FIRs.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court which are delivered including by this Court in respect of co-employees of the petitioner whose services were terminated on account of registration of FIR against them. However, it is not in dispute that the aforesaid orders were quashed in the Page 14 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined respective proceedings by considering the language of the order of termination and a perusal of the order dated 16.02.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 8547 of 2021 and more particularly paragraph No.5 of the said judgment would indicate that the Court has considered that the order of termination was referring to registration of FIR against the petitioner and therefore, the same was held to be stigmatic. Similar observation was made in paragraph No.5 of the judgment dated 17.08.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 8606 of 2022, same was the case in respect of common oral judgment dated 30.01.2025 delivered by this very Court in Special Civil Application No.4111 of 2024 with Special Civil Application No. 12694 of 2022, wherein in paragraph No.4 of the order, there is a clear mentioned about the fact that the services of the petitioner was terminated on account of reference of FIR registered against the petitioner and therefore, those orders were held to be stigmatic and order of termination Page 15 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined was quashed.
10. In the instant case, the order of termination is based on the ground of absenteeism and therefore, what is required to be seen is whether an order of termination based on absenteeism can be said to be a stigmatic order or not.
11. This Court had an occasion to deal with such situation in case of Dhirenbhai Prahladji Thakor Versus State of Gujarat and others decided on 27.01.2025 in Special Civil Application No. 5939 of 2023 wherein this Court has observed in paragraph Nos. 6 to 10 as under :-
"6. Ms. Tanushree Shrimal, learned AGP appearing for the respondent No.1 pointed out that the petitioner's services were never regularized and still he was a probationer and, therefore, for services of the petitioner, no full-
fledged inquiry is required. She
further submitted that the
petitioner's services was terminated on account of 769 days absenteeism which is recorded in the order which cannot be said to be a stigmatic but the same reflects the fact about the petitioner's presence. She further Page 16 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined submitted that in similar case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Tapas Roy, 2006 (6) SCC 453 has held that such termination would not be stigmatic and it cannot be said to be a stigmatic termination and the order of termination was upheld. She relied upon paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said decision and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner's services were terminated by noticing 769 days absenteeism alleged against the petitioner. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner was not on regular establishment and his appointment was contractual in nature meaning thereby the petitioner was not a regular employee and, therefore, for terminating the services of the petitioner, no full-fledged inquiry was required. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Tapas Roy (supra), has observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under :-
"7.The order of discharge has, as we have already indicated, set out several instances of the respondent absenting himself unauthorizedly from the training centre. These facts have been relied upon for the purpose of concluding that the Page 17 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined respondent was not interested in the training and had no respect for discipline. This conclusion was a ground for holding that the respondent was unsuitable for the Police Department.
8.The High Court was of the view that R.10 of the Rules did not apply to orders which were stigmatic. As has already been held by this Court in Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences that in order to constitute a stigmatic order necessitating a formal inquiry, it would have to be seen whether prior to the passing of the order, there was an inquiry into the allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct so that the order of discharge was really a finding of guilt. If any of these three factors are absent, the order would not be punitive. We have also held that stigma in the wider sense of the word is implicit in every order of termination during probation. It is only when there is something more than imputing unsuitability for the post in question, that the order may be considered to be stigmatic. In our view, the language, quoted earlier in the discharge order, cannot be said to be stigmatic as it neither alleges any moral turpitude or misconduct on the part of the respondent nor was there an inquiry as such preceding the order of discharge. The order has been passed strictly in terms of R.10 of the Rules. We are, accordingly, of the view that Page 18 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined the appeal must be allowed. It is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order is set aside."
8. In view of the above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that stigma in the wider sense of the word is implicit in every order of termination during probation. It is only when there is something more than imputing unsuitability for the post in question, that the order may be considered to be stigmatic. In view of the above, the impugned order of termination cannot be said to be an order of stigmatic termination and hence, the submission of learned advocate Mr. Bharda that the impugned order is a stigmatic order cannot be accepted.
9. As far as the other submission of learned advocate Mr. Bharda that the petitioner's application for regularization was not considered by the respondents and upon that application, services of the petitioner was terminated is concerned, considering the fact that the petitioner was not a regular employee, the respondents were not even required to assign any reasons for terminating his services and once the order of termination is not found to be stigmatic, the respondents were well within their right to terminate the services of the petitioner. Accordingly, the above submission also cannot be accepted.
Page 19 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined
10. Resultantly, the petition fails and is required to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs."
12. The aforesaid decision would indicate that stigma in the wider sense of the word is implicit in every order of termination during probation and it is only when there is something more than imputing unsuitability for the post in question then only the order can be considered to be stigmatic.
13. In the instant case also, the petitioner services are terminated on the ground of absenteeism which depicts the facts about the petitioner's conduct and does not form any opinion about the petitioner's capability and therefore, the order cannot be said to be stigmatic order.
14. Even otherwise as per the decision relied upon by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda appearing for the respondent - Page 20 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined State, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 23.03.2022 in case of Gohil Kuldipsinh Chhanubhai and 5 others Versus State of Gujarat and 2 others in Special Civil Application No. 8436 of 2018 and allied matters, summarized the legal preposition about the contractual employees and their employment in paragraph No.10 as under :-
"10. Thus, the synopsis of the afore noted observations of the Apex Court is as under:
(a) Article 16(1) of the Constitution is not applicable and everything is governed by contract. The persons holding the tem-
porary / ad hoc or contractual for a fixed period do not have any right to such posts, and their appointment comes to an end after such period gets over. Such right is not available even if the con- tract is renewed intermittently.
(b) Having accepted the terms and condi- tions stipulated in the appointment or- ders, they are not permitted to turn back from such conditions.
(c) The contractual employees have no right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time.
(d) The termination of a contractual em- Page 21 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined ployment in accordance with the terms of the contract is permissible and the em- ployee could claim no protection against such termination even when one of the con- tracting parties happens to be the State, and it is not bound to re-employee the em- ployee.
(e) The State can enter into contracts of temporary employment and impose special terms in each case, provided they are not inconsistent with the Constitution, and those who choose to accept those terms and enter into the contract are bound by them, even as the State is bound."
15. The small (c) of the aforesaid paragraph No.10 would indicate that the contractual employees have no right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time.
16. In view of above, when the termination of the petitioner is not stigmatic, the petitioners duty is not replaced by some other contractual employee as can be seen from the order and as the contractual employee has no right to seek extension of contract, the petition fails. The order whereby the petitioner's contract is not renewed on the ground of absenteeism is held to be a non-stigmatic order as the same does not Page 22 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined caste any stigma upon the present petitioner.
17. Further, when the petitioner is a contractual employee and he does not have any right to be continued in the employment and considering the fact that the petitioners services are terminated way back in the year 2023 vide order dated 16.09.2023, the said order cannot be said to be illegal order and therefore, no interference against the said order is called for. Accordingly, the present petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
18. In view of the petitioner's submission that the order of termination is passed as a counterblast to the application of contempt, the said submission is not backed by any documentary evidence or any other credible material and when the order of termination is not based on registration of FIR or does not say anything about the contempt proceedings, I have to consider the same as it is unless the submission Page 23 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined of the petitioner is backed by some documentary evidence or any other credible material and therefore, the aforesaid submission is absolutely baseless and cannot be taken into consideration. Petition is dismissed accordingly.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 24 of 24 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 21:29:15 IST 2025