Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
PRADEEP KUMAR RAGHAV - Appellant
Versus
TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD. - Respondent
LPA 78 of 2018, CM APPL.7914, 7915, 7916 of 2018
Decided On : 07-05-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Shankar K. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Ekta Sikri and Ms. Jasbir Bidhuri, Advocates
A contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced unless it falls under certain exceptions, and judicial review of termination order passed by a public authority in terms of the contract is permissible only if the action is found to be illegal, perverse, unreasonable, unfair, or irrational.
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act - Contract of Service - Sections 14, 41 - The court held that a contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced unless it falls under certain exceptions. The court also emphasized that judicial review of termination order passed by a public authority in terms of the contract is permissible only if the action is found to be illegal, perverse, unreasonable, unfair, or irrational. The court further stated that there is no question of reinstatement or regularization of a contractual employee against the posts advertised by the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a contractual employee, sought specific enforcement of the subject contract and reinstatement with the respondent. The respondent terminated the appellant's contract after its expiry, and the appellant challenged the termination on the grounds of arbitrariness, unfairness, and unreasonableness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced and that the termination of the appellant's contract was not illegal, perverse, unreasonable, unfair, or irrational. The court also dismissed the plea for reinstatement and regularization of the appellant.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were whether a contractual employee can seek specific enforcement of a contract for personal service, whether the court can judicially review the order relieving an employee to enforce the subject contract, and whether a contractual employee can seek reinstatement and regularization with the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced unless it falls under certain exceptions. The court also emphasized that judicial review of termination order passed by a public authority in terms of the contract is permissible only if the action is found to be illegal, perverse, unreasonable, unfair, or irrational. The court further stated that there is no question of reinstatement or regularization of a contractual employee against the posts advertised by the respondent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act assails a judgment and order dated 08.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.130/2018 titled as “Pradeep Kumar Raghav v. Telecommunication Consultants India Limited”.
2. The reliefs prayed for by the appellant in the said writ petition were as follows:
“(a) set aside the office order / letter dated 10.11.2017 and Respondent may be directed not to replace the Petitioner with another set of contractual employees;
(b) Respondent may further be directed to reinstate the Petitioner to the post already held by him either on Indian posting or Foreign posting and the salary from July, 2017 till date may be released;
(c) Respondent may be directed to regularize the service of the Petitioner in accordance with similar scheme or circular dated 16.11.2012 and 28.03.2016;
(d) pass such other or further order / orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant was employed with the respondent on a contractual basis and was relieved from his duties w.e.f. 30.06.2017, after completion of his contractual period.
4. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the appellant before us that both the Pan African E Network Project as well as the Oman Project, where he was subsequently assigned, are still in operation and, consequently, his termination during the pendency of the said projects is in violation of clause 12 and 13 of the ‘CONTRACT OF SERVICE FOR TEMPORARY PROJECT’ dated 11.03.2010 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject contract’), entered into between the parties herein.
5. Further, whilst relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gridco Limited and Anr. v. Sadananda Doloi and Ors. reported as (2011) 15 SCC 16, it would be forcefully urged that the respondent whilst exercising its powers and discharging its function acts for public good and in public interest and, consequently, minimal requirement of public law obligations are required to be discharged by them in exercising such function. In other words, challenge to the action of the respondent is made on the ground that it is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable and, hence, offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, resultantly, judicial review is permissible.
6. The relevant clauses of the subject contract entered into between the parties herein are as follows:
“9. The services of the Contractual Employee will be for a period of 1 year. If the performance of the Contractual Employee is satisfactory and there is need in the project, it can be further be extended by TCIL on the same terms & conditions.
10. The contractual employee shall not be transferred to any project other then Pan African and immediately on completion of the Project his employment shall stand automatically terminated, unless specifically assigned by the TCIL Management to any other project.
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
12. The services of the Contractual Employee can be terminated as and when the project awarded to TCIL by its client comes to an end or in case the Contractual Employee is found to be not performing his functions suitably and properly, or if he is guilty of any misconduct or breach of this agreements during the currency of the said project with a notice issued by TCIL to this effect in writing
13. Either party shall terminate this Contract by giving one calendar month's notice in writing or one calendar month's salary in lieu thereof.”
7. The respondent is a wholly owned Government of India Public Sector Enterprise under the administrative control of the Department of Telecommunications (DOT), Ministry of Communications, Government of India.
8. The relation between the appellant and the respondent herein is purely contractual, governed by the subject contract. The subject contract is terminable in nature at the
