RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus PARAMJEET SINGH

[2019] 7 S.C.R. 295

RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORTCORPORATION

PARAMJEET SINGH

(Civil Appeal No. 4593 of 2019)

MAY 3, 2019

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND

HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Service Law: Termination of respondent-conductor appointedCon contractual basis – Contractual appointment was for periodof one year or until the shortage of drivers was met whichever wasearlier – Termination order, challenged – High Court allowed thewrit petition on the ground that there was breach of principle ofnatural justice – On appeal held: The terms of the appointmentDindicated that the respondent was on purely contractualappointment and that the services could be dispensed with, withoutnotice at any stage – In view of the terms of the contractualengagement, there was no fault in the action of the appellant interminating the respondent – The impugned judgment of the HighCourt is set aside.E

Hari Ram Maurya v Union of India and others (2006)9 SCC 167 – distinguished.

Case Law Reference

(2006) 9 SCC 167distinguishedPara 10

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4593of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2016 of the HighCourt of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. CivilSpecial Appeal (Writ) No. 859 of 2016.

Imtiaz Ahmed, Ms. Naghma Imtiaz, Ahmed Zargham (for M/S.Equity Lex Associates), Advs. for the Appellant.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered byDR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent was appointed as conductor on contractualBbasis on 21 January 2006 by the appellant. The contractual appointmentwas for period of one year or until the shortage of drivers was met,whichever was earlier. The agreement (described as the contract letter)which was entered into between the appellant and the respondentstipulated as follows:

C“11. While working as conductor if on inspection of vehicle en-route if any passenger is found without ticket then in such asituation the second party would be removed from the temporaryemployment and to fulfill the loss, he would also be liable to paythe amount as determined by the Head Quarter. Apart from thisthe first party would be at liberty to proceed against the secondDparty under the prevention of without ticket travel act.”

3. Clause 16 of the agreement stipulated that:

“16. The first party will have the right to terminate the temporaryappointment of the first party at any time without any notice.”

E4. The services of the respondent were dispensed with on 21March 2007.

5. Challenging the order of termination, the respondent filed awrit petition, which was allowed by learned Single Judge of theRajasthan High Court on 6 April 2016. The writ appeal was dismissedFon 19 September 2016 by Division Bench of the High Court.

6. The respondent has been served, but has not enteredappearance.

7. The sole ground on which the writ petition was allowed wasthat there was breach of the principle of natural justice.G

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitsthat the High Court was in error, having regard to the fact that the natureof the appointment was purely contractual for period of one year oruntil the shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. Moreover,the contract stipulates that the services of the respondent could beHdispensed with without any notice.

9. We find merit in the submission. The terms of the appointmentindicate that the respondent was on purely contractual appointmentand that the services could be dispensed with without notice at any stage.

10. The learned Single Judge of the High Court relied upon adecision of this Court in Hari Ram Maurya v Union of India andothers[1]. That case is, however, distinguishable since it was found bythis Court that the removal was on the ground that the employee, thoughhe was engaged on temporary basis, was guilty of charge of bribery.

11. Having regard to the terms of the contractual engagement,we are of the view that the action of the appellant cannot be faulted.We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgmentand order of the High Court. In consequence, the writ petition filed bythe respondent shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no orderas to costs.

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.