The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the government to act fairly and without discrimination in employment matters, and the requirement to adhere to valid and non-discriminatory standards or norms in exercising power.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Aggrieved by the disengagement orders dated 12.05.2020 (Annexure P-8) and dated 08.05.2020 (Annexure P-10), the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:

"(i) That the disengagement orders Annexure P-8 dated 12-5-2020 and Annexure P-10 dated 8-5-2020 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to continue his services till the Scheme is completed in 2022, and extend his contract period like other Experts.

(iii) That act and conduct of respondents may kindly be declared as arbitrary and discriminatory. The respondents may kindly also be directed to release the deducted salary of petitioner with interest."

2. The petitioner retired as Senior Law Officer on 31.12.2017 from the Office of the Director, Urban Developmentcum-Mission Director (Nodal Officer), Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Palika Bhawan Talland, Shimla, after having served for 37 years in different departments of the State of Himachal Pradesh.

3. Respondent No.3 i.e. National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), Hotel Cedarwood, Building, Jakhoo Road Shimla, Himachal Pradesh advertised various posts including the post of Social Development Specialist on 25.02.2018. Interviews were conducted by a Board constituted by respondent No.3 on 06.03.2018 in which the petitioner was selected and given appointment vide order dated 08.03.2018 as Social Development Specialist in the Office of the Municipal Council at Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and joined on 08.03.2018.

4. Immediately thereafter, respondent No.2 i.e. Mission Director, transferred the petitioner from Municipal Council, Sundernagar and placed his services at the disposal of the State Level Technical Cell, Directorate of Urban Development under "Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna- Housing for all Project", till further orders.

5. In compliance to the orders, the petitioner joined at Shimla on 12.03.2018 itself. Thereafter vide order dated 27.06.2018, the petitioner was directed to look after the work of Law Officer in addition to the Social Development Expert.

6. On 13.03.2019, an agreement for extension of contract of the petitioner for a period of one year was executed which was valid upto 07.03.2020.

7. Some of the salient features of the agreement as contained in Clause-1, 11, 12 and 15 are extracted below:

"1. The individual contractor shall perform the function of Social Development Specialist at under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Scheme/Project initially up to 07.03.2020. Unless extended, the contractual services shall automatically cease on the completion of the said period. The individual contractor will be paid consultancy fee of Rs.45000/- (Fourty Five Thousands only) per month.

11. The contract shall be terminated during the period of currency on any one day on 15 days' notice from either side.

12. The contractual services are initially upto 07.03.2020 and are purely temporary against the assigned project. In case the project is abandoned/discontinued, due to any reasons before the said period, the contractual services shall be terminated at fifteen days' notice. He/she will not be expected to leave employment during the contractual period without giving 15 days' notice before leaving the job failing which salary for shortfall in notice period shall be recovered.

15. The decision of the Director, NIELIT, Shimla Centre in all matters relating to this contract shall be final and binding on the contractor."

8. Even though, the project under which the petitioner was working is required to be implemented with effect from 17.06.2015 upto 31.03.2022, yet, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 12.05.2020 which was received by the petitioner on 01.06.2020 informed the petitioner that since his contract period had expired on 08.05.2020, he was not required to attend the office from the expiry date i.e. 08.05.2020