Implied extension of a contractual appointment based on the actions of the employer and the reasonableness of directives given to the employee.

ORDER :

(Ananda Sen, J.)

1. This intra-court appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner, appellant herein, challenging the order dated 3.8.2022, whereby the writ petition WP(S) No. 3399 of 2020, filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. Heard the counsel for the parties.

3. The writ petitioner-appellant was appointed as Account Assistant on contract on 8.5.2008 under the respondent Authority and he was being regularly paid honorarium. The petitioner was transferred to the Department of District Rural Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as DRDA), Dhanbad vide letter dated 24.7.2019 and was relieved from Govindpur. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the wife of the petitioner fell ill and the petitioner also, for which, he had to visit Vellore for treatment. The petitioner applied for leave on 26.7.2019, but DRDA, Dhanbad i.e. respondent No. 5 directed the writ petitioner vide letter dated 3.8.2019 and 17.8.2019 to join immediately. On the ground of illness, the writ petitioner prayed for time vide letter dated 8.8.2019. The DRDA, Dhanbad-respondent No. 5 issued a show cause to the writ petitioner on 21.8.2019 as to why his services should not be terminated, to which the writ petitioner prayed for sometime. Respondent No. 5 constituted a Medical Board for ascertaining the medical condition of the petitioner on 28.8.2019 and vide report dated 30.8.2019, the petitioner was declared fit by the Medical Board. Respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 12.09.2019 directed the petitioner to join within twelve hours with condition that if he does not join within twelve hours, his services will be terminated. The writ petitioner received the said letter dated 12.9.2019 on 18.9.2019 and by that time, the petitioner was already dismissed vide letter No. 994 dated 14.9.2019. The petitioner approached this Court in WPS No. 3399 of 2020 challenging the letter dated 14.9.2019, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, resulting in filing of this appeal.

4. Counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant argues that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application taking into consideration that the appointment of the petitioner was contractual and since the contract was not renewed, the impugned order of termination is justified. He submits that the said finding is absolutely erroneous on the facts as the appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time. He further submits that the mere fact that the petitioner had been working since the year 2008 continuously suggests that the contract was being extended from time to time and a person who is working since the year 2008 cannot be removed by the State in the manner in which it has been done.

5. After hearing the parties and going through the record, we find that admittedly the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis on 8.5.2008. Immediately before passing the impugned order dated 14.9.2019, the petitioner was working, thus it is clear that the petitioner was working for ten years. The contract was for one year and it was extended from time to time, which led to continuation of the services of the writ petitioner for ten long years. The learned Single Judge also found that the last extension of contract was made vide Memo No. 24 dated 6.1.2018; period of which was 6.1.2018 to 5.1.2019, but thereafter there was no written extension. However, it is an admitted fact that on 24.7.2019, the writ petitioner was transferred. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was transferred from MGNREGA Cell and was directed to join DRDA on 03.08.2019. This action of the respondent clearly suggests that there was implied extension of the contract of service of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner prayed for leave on the ground of ill health.

6. At the instance of respondent No. 5, the writ petitioner was examined by the Medical Board and the petitioner was found fit on 30.8.2019. Respondent No. 5 admittedly issued a letter on 1