The main legal point established is that the termination of a service contract for contractual employees must be in compliance with the terms of the contract and the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT

Amrita Sinha, J. - As facts of both the writ petitions are identical, they are taken up for hearing analogously and disposed of by this common order.

2. Can 2 of 2021 have been filed by the petitioners for getting the matter heard on urgent basis. Affidavits in both the matters are over. Both the matters are appearing in the list under the heading 'Application', and by consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action on the part of the Gayeshpur Municipality in not extending their service contract which expired on 31st March, 2020.

4. The petitioners were appointed as Sub-Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 9th February, 2008 in the Gayeshpur Municipality on contractual basis. The engagement letter of the petitioners specifically mentions that they have been engaged on contract basis for the project duration period for execution of schemes under JNNURM in the Municipality on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.8,000/- per month. A formal agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the Gayeshpur Municipality. There were certain terms and conditions mentioned in the contractual agreement. The petitioners agreed that they will not claim regular appointment and/or absorption to the said engagement merely by the reason of the agreement. The engagement was on contract basis for the project duration period. The engagement was liable to be cancelled by terminating the contract without assigning any reasons and without payment of any compensation whatsoever. The petitioners were not eligible for any permanent appointment or absorption in any post by virtue of their engagement.

5. The project under which the petitioners were working came to an end on 31st March, 2017. After the closure of the project the Gayeshpur Municipality engaged the petitioners to look after the works of the Municipal Engineering Department or as assigned by the Municipal Authority time to time with effect from 2nd May, 2017, on purely temporary basis, for a period of six months, at a monthly honourarium of Rs.8,000/- only. The engagement was purely temporary and valid up to 31st October, 2017 or until further order, whichever is earlier. The engagement letter issued in favour of the petitioners clearly mentioned that no claim will be entertained in future for any sanctioned post against their engagement. The service of the petitioners was however extended and the same remained valid till 31st March, 2020. After the expiry of the aforesaid contractual period the Municipality did not extend their service contract. The petitioners are aggrieved by the same.

6. The petitioners rely upon a departmental order issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi dated 20th March, 2020 wherein the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments have been advised that in the backdrop of the challenging situation faced due to outbreak of Covid-19, all the employers of public/private establishments may be advised to extend their coordination by not terminating their employees, particularly casual and contractual workers from job or reduce their wages. In the said advisory it was mentioned that the termination of employee from the job in such a scenario would deepen the crisis and will not only weaken the financial condition of the employee but also destroy their moral to combat with the pandemic.

7. The petitioners submit that the Municipality ought to have acted in accordance with the advice given by the Central Government and ought to have permitted the petitioners to continue with their service.

8. It has been submitted that no reason whatsoever has been put forth by the Municipality for not extending the service contract of the petitioners. There is no grievance and/or allegation against the petitioners with regard to their performance. According to the petitioners as there is a need in the Municipality the petitioners ought not to have been terminated and they ought to have been permitted t