THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J
Juri Barman C/o- Sri Gautam Barman - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam - Respondent
WP(C) 247 of 2023
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) Contract Law - Termination of Contractual Employment - The petitioner challenged the dismissal order dated 25.06.2020 for unauthorized absence, claiming wrongful termination without notice. The court found the termination valid under the contract terms due to misconduct and absence. (Paras 3 , 4 , 12 , 17 )
(B) Delay and Laches - The court noted the writ petition was filed after 2½ years, rendering it hit by delay and laches. (Paras 5 , 17 )
(C) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that it cannot act as an appellate authority over administrative decisions unless shown to be illegal or irrational. (Paras 14 , 18 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was engaged on a contractual basis but was absent without leave from 01.07.2019 to 25.06.2020, leading to termination. The petitioner applied for Child Care Leave, which was not granted. (Paras 3 , 9 )
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the termination as per the contractual agreement, stating that the petitioner's absence constituted misconduct. The delay in filing the writ petition further justified dismissal. (Paras 17 , 20 )
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the termination based on unauthorized absence and the impact of delay in filing the petition. (Paras 4 , 17 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the termination was justified under the contract terms due to misconduct and that the delay in filing the petition barred relief. (Paras 17 , 20 )
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. D.S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3. Ms. A. Hussain, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.5.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal letter dated 25.06.2020 issued by the Headmaster of the Haibargaon High School, terminating the contractual engagement of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner had been engaged by the School Management Committee of the Haibargaon High School on 10.06.2010 on contractual basis. The petitioner’s case is that the her contractual appointment was terminated in view of being absent from the school w.e.f. 01.07.2019 to 25.06.2020. The petitioner’s further case is that the though the petitioner’s contract period was to expire in July, 2020, the contractual service of the petitioner had been terminated on 25.06.2020, without any notice being issued to the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel thus prays that the impugned dismissal order dated 25.06.2020 issued by the respondent No.4 should be set aside and the petitioner should be reinstated into service.
4. Ms. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submits that though the petitioner had made applications for Child Care Leave w.e.f. 01.09.2018 to 31.12.2018 and 01.08.2019 to 31.03.2020, the same had not been granted to the petitioner. Despite the above, the petitioner had taken unauthorized leave. She also submits that as the contractual engagement of the petitioner had expired, the present writ petition should be dismissed, as the petitioner cannot be reinstated into service, after the expiry of her engagement/contractual period.
5. Ms. A. Hussain further submits that while the petitioner’s contractual service had been terminated on 25.06.2020, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition only on 10.01.2023, i.e. after more than 2½ years of her dismissal order. As such, the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. She also submits that the dismissal letter dated 25.06.2020 was issued by the School Management and Development Committee after a thorough discussion, wherein it was discussed that the petitioner had played with the future of the students of the School by remaining absent. Further, despite giving time to the petitioner to continue her service, she continued to remain unauthorisedly absent thereby jeopardizing the careers of the students of the School further.
6. Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that as per the contract agreement executed between the parties, the School Management Committee had the power to terminate the petitioner’s contractual service, if the petitioner did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the contract. As the petitioner had been dismissed from service by deliberately remaining absent, the petitioner’s service was rightly terminated. Further, the engagement/appointment of the petitioner as an Additional Teacher had been made by the School Management Committee and no challenge could be made to the termination order by way of this writ petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to set aside the impugned dismissal order dated 25.06.2020 issued by the respondent no.4, terminating the service of the petitioner and to reinstate the petitioner as an Additional Mathematic Teacher in the Haibargaon High School.
9 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the learned counsels for the parties and the pleadings, show that though the petitioner had applied for Child Care Leave for 4 months in the year 2018, the same had not been granted by the respondents. The petitioner thereafter applied for Child Care Leave again from 01.08.2019 to 31.03.2020, i.e. for a period of 8 months. However, the same was also not granted by the respondents. Despite leave not being grant
Ajoy Kumar Haloi Vs. State of Assam & Others
GRIDCO Ltd. & anr. Vs. Sadananda Doloi & Ors reported in (2011) 15 SCC 16
Termination of contractual employment for unauthorized absence is valid under contract terms, and delay in filing a writ petition can bar relief.
The court upheld the termination of a contractual engagement due to unauthorized absence, affirming that judicial review does not extend to substituting administrative decisions unless shown to be un....
A contractual employee's rights are limited to the terms of the contract, and expiration without renewal negates any claim for continuation of service.
The contract-based employment does not entitle the employee to the protections of Article 311, thus allowing termination based on performance without a full departmental inquiry.
A public servant's unauthorized absence can lead to dismissal, even if procedural irregularities exist in the disciplinary process, if the absence is deemed as abandonment of duty.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.