2021 Supreme(HP) 412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya, JJ.
Vinod Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Cwp No. 1879 of 2019
Decided On : 02-08-2021

The principle of estoppel and the application of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code in employment contract cases.

Headnote:

Estoppel - Employment Contract - Lab Assistant - 16.02.2008, the respondents issued the employment notice for the direct recruitment to the different posts on different Polyclinic under Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme in ECHS Polyclinic Solan and other places. In this notice, the applications from desirous eligible candidates for the post of Lab. Assistant at Polyclinic, Solan were invited within fifteen days. The petitioner being eligible submitted his candidature within the stipulated period. On 05.03.2008, the respondents conducted interview and out of five other candidates, the petitioner was selected for the above post. On 28.03.2008, the ECHS Station Headquarter, Kasauli, issued the appointment letter of MED Staff (Lab Assistant) in favour of the petitioner, who was directed to report for duty at ECHS, Polyclinic Solan by 01.04.2008. The petitioner joined as Lab Assistant at ECHS, Polyclinic Solan, on 01.04.2008 and on the said date an agreement of employment was executed wherein the contractual period of 12 months was mentioned as initial period and the same was made renewal for 12 months at a time and subject to attaining the maximum age as prescribed in Appendix A to Government of India, Ministry of Defence Letter No. 24(6)/03/US/WE/D (RES) dated 22.09.2003 or as amended from time to time upto the age of 58 years. The respondents after the completion of contractual period of 12 months entered upon the renewal contract of employment on the same terms and conditions on yearly basis and last agreement was made on 22.09.2018 and 29.10.2018 wherein the contract of employment was further renewal upto 18.08.2019. However, the respondents on 04.02.2019 issued notice to the petitioner that his services will be terminated with effect from 31.03.2019 constraining him to approach this Court by filing CWP No. 401/2019. This petition was disposed of on the basis of the instructions imparted by the respondents that the services of the petitioner shall be retained till the expiry of the contract period i.e. November, 2019. On 06.08.2019, respondent No.4 orally directed the petitioner not to report for duty after 18.08.2019, hence, the petition. The respondents contested the petition by filing reply wherein in preliminary submissions, it has been averred that the petitioner has suppressed material and important facts from this Court while filing the present petition. It is claimed that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 401/2019 on the same and similar facts for the same relief and the same was decided by this Court on 29.03.2019 by observing as under:- "Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India informs that as per the instructions received by him, contract of the petitioner is valid till November, 2019 and he shall be retained in service till the expiry of the contract period i.e. November, 2019 and at this stage, instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of." In the other preliminary submissions, it is averred that the petitioner has suppressed another vital fact from this Court that the vacancy of the Lab Assistant on which the petitioner was employed has since been abolished vide letter dated 10.01.2019. On merits, it is contended that the petitioner had accepted the terms of his appointment on contractual basis with his eyes wide open and, therefore, he is estopped from filing the instant petition. The Court observed that the petitioner did not object to the petition being disposed of with the limited relief permitting him to continue till November, 2019. Nowhere, the petitioner impressed upon the Court at that time to claim that he had right to continue till his superannuation or till the disposal of the appeal. The Court held that the principles contained under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code are clearly applicable to the facts of the instant case. The Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.