Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Renuka Tiwary – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 126 of 2021
Decided On : 24-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Power of high court to issue certain writs – Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 13 – Performance of Duties and Standards of Conduct – Facts of lis which is required to be enumeratd – Remuneration – Held, Court would be in negative because of the settled position of law that contractual engage cannot claim, as a matter of right, for extension of contract rather contractual engagement depends upon the terms and conditions of agreement – Herein, when one of terms and conditions if to effect that period of tenure will be extendable initially for one year and subsequently it was extended for a period of two years which does not suggest that writ-petitioner/appellant will claim as a matter of right extension of her contract – Court, on basis of terms of contract has found that period of tenure was initially for one year and subsequently, service of writ-petitioner/appellant was extended for a further period of two years and while discharging her duties as such, some serious irregularities of engagement of her kith and kin in the service including financial irregularities has been surfaced as would be evident from reasoned order – If said allegation of the writ-petitioner/ appellant which would evident from reasoned order that the enquiry pertaining to engagement of her relative is still in progress and financial irregularities has been surfaced in audit report, can in such situation writ-petitioner/appellant claim extension of her contractual engagement – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing. They have no complaint whatsoever about any audio and video quality.
2. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.01.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 780 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the reasoned order dated 21.01.2019 by which the claim of the writ-petitioner/appellant for acceptance of her joining has been rejected.
3. The brief facts of the lis which is required to be enumerated read as hereunder:
The writ-petitioner/appellant had entered into a contract as per which the initial engagement was for the period of one year subject to its extension. As per the agreement/contract dated 08.08.2008 the writ petitioner/appellant joined on the said post and started discharging her duties and after completion of one year, the contract of the service of the writ-petitioner/appellant was renewed for two years by the agreement dated 03.07.2009. However, prior to coming to the service, the writ-petitioner/appellant was working as Consultant (Civil Society Mainstreaming) on contract basis vide letter dated 25.01.2008 pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspaper dated 14.12.2007 and subsequently she was working additionally as Joint Director (IEC) but she was terminated vide letter dated 04.09.2009.
The aforesaid order of termination was challenged by the writ-petitioner/appellant before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4399 of 2009 wherein the order of termination was quashed with a direction upon the respondents to allow the writ-petitioner/ appellant to discharge her duty on the post of Joint Director (IEC) and to consider to pay the arrear of salary of the writ-petitioner/appellant. The said order was challenged before this Court in intra-court appeal being L.P.A. No. 37 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.07.2018 with an observation that the State can always take a decision about the payment of arrears and remuneration for the period of contract. Extension of contract is the prerogative of one of the parties to the contract. There cannot be a compulsory extension of contract, otherwise the very spirit of Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 will be violated patently. This aspect of the matter shall be kept in mind while deciding the claim of the writ-petitioner/appellant as per the direction given by the learned Single Judge dated 30.09.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4399 of 2009. Thereafter, the respondents have passed a reasoned order on 21.01.2019 whereby and whereunder the case of the writ-petitioner/appellant has not been accepted and the application for extension of joining was rejected which was challenged before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 780 of 2019. The learned Single Judge has refused to interfere wit
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
