Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Manzoor Ahmad Bhat vs Union Of India And Others on 28 November, 2019
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
Serial No.18 Page 1 of 2
Advance List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
SWP/1077/2007 [IA/1/2007]
Manzoor Ahmad Bhat
...Petitioner (s)
Through: None
V/s
Union of India and others
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. T.M. Shamsi, ASGI
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER
28.11.2019
01. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of order of termination dated 19.06.2007 including notice of termination dated 21.5.2007.
02. No interim relief was granted to the petitioner.
03. Reply stands filed by the respondents on 6th November, 2007 (page no.30) wherein it is stated as follows:-
"2. Contents of para 4 are denied however it is submitted that the petitioner was employed on contractual basis in ECHS Polyclinic Srinagar and an agreement for his engagement for a period of 11 months on contractual basis was executed in this behalf. The appointment letter referred to in the writ petition is admitted to have been issued by the answering respondents. The appointment was executed on 1st November, 2004 which was extended from time to time after the break of two or three days and lastly the agreement for renewal was executed on 6th September 2006.
3. In reply to para 5 it is submitted that the contractual agreement initially executed expired on 30th September, 2005 which was however renewed by a fresh appointment letter dated 28th September, 2005 which appointment was to commence from 3rd October 2005 for a period of 11 months and accordingly expired on 2nd September, 2006.
4. In reply to para 6 it is submitted that after the expiry of contractual service of eleven months there has been a break in the petitioner's agreement of the employment which fact has been concealed by the petitioner in writ petition. In this behalf the petitioner's assertion that the petitioner performed his duties continuously from October 2004 till the date of his termination is not true. This fact is evident from the record that the petitioner's engagement was vide agreement dated 1st November, 2004 and 3.10.2005 and lastly on 6th September, 2006. It is also submitted here that the petitioner's engagement was never extended for another two years afterwards as before such extension the petitioner was disengaged from the services. It is also submitted here that as per the para 2 of the said agreement a fresh contract is to be executed by the petitioner and the respondents.SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2019.11.30 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 2
5. Contents of para 7 are denied to be correct however it is submitted that the termination notice 21st May 2007 is legally valid in as much as it has been issued on behalf of the respondent No.2 in pursuance to the rules prevailing the respondent office, however, the termination order challenged in the writ petition has been issued by the respondent No.2 and signed by him personally. The said order of termination has been therefore issued by the competent authority and therefore is not liable to be quashed."
04. The matter is pending for last more than 12 years. The petitioner has not disputed the facts stated by the respondents.
05. None appeared on behalf of petitioner when the matter was listed on 7th March, 2019 and 22nd August, 2019 and was adjourned in the interest of justice.
06. There is no appearance on behalf of petitioner even today when the matter is called out. Adverse orders are deferred in the interest of justice.
07. List again on 27th December, 2019.
A (GITA MITTAL) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 28.11.2019 Shameem H. SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2019.11.30 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document