The order of termination of services must be procedurally fair and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. An opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the employee even in cases of contractual employment.

JUDGMENT

In this intra-Court appeal the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 11-1-2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 13272/2009 (S) by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 has been allowed. In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned order, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.

2. The State Health Mission is a project which is run by the State Government. The respondent No. 1 vide order dated 13-12-2006 was appointed on the post of District Accounts Manager by the Commissioner, Health Services and Mission Director, State Health Mission on contract basis for a period of two years on a consolidated salary of Rs. 15,000/-. The services of respondent No. 1 were extended for a period of one year, i.e., upto 10-1-2010. The service conditions of the respondent No. 1 are governed by an agreement executed between the respondent No. 1 and the Chief Medical & Health Officer. The copy of the agreement dated 20-2-2009 has been placed on record as Annexure P-6.

3. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that District Project Manager, namely, Shri Abhilash Kaushal Tripathi (respondent No. 2 herein) is a person having political connections/patronage. When the respondent No. 1 lodged protest against the irregularities committed by respondent No. 2, he got enraged and threatened the respondent No. 1 that he would ensure that the services of respondent No. 1 are dispensed with. The respondent No. 1 made a complaint dated 20-2-2009 in this regard to Chief Medical and Health Officer. It is further averred in the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 2 got a false complaint made against him that he had issued certain bearer cheques. As soon as the respondent No. 1 came to know about the aforesaid complaint by way of abundant caution. He submitted a detailed representation to the Commissioner, Health Services. However, eventually vide order dated 4-12-2009 the services of the respondent No. 1 were dispensed with on the ground that he had issued various bearer cheques instead of account payee cheques and, therefore, his integrity is doubtful. It was further stated that the period of appointment of respondent No. 1 has already come to an end in February, 2009.

4. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 11-1-2011, inter alia held that when the order dated 4-12-2009 was passed, the appointment of respondent No. 1 was subsisting. By the resolution dated 4-8-2008, the State Health Committee has taken a decision to the effect that sanctioned staff employed in the scheme be continued till the period of project. No notice was given to the respondent No. 1 in terms of Clause 8 of the agreement before issuing the order terminating his services. The reason for discontinuation of employment of respondent No. 1 that he had issued bearer cheques was not found to be substantiated from the record. Accordingly, learned Single Judge quashed the order of termination of the services of respondent No. 1 and directed the appellant to issue an order of appointment within a period of two weeks and to consider the question of grant of backwages as well and to pass suitable order in this regard.

5. Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No. 1 has no right to hold the post as the nature of appointment is contractual. The resolution of the State Health Committee dated 4-8-2008, neither culminated into passing of any order in favour of the respondent No. 1 nor in execution of the agreement. No writ can be issued to enforce the terms and conditions of the contract and the contract of service cannot be specifically enforced. If according to the respondent No. 1 his services have been terminated in breach of the terms and conditions, at the most, same entitles him to claim damages. While drawing our attention to the terms and conditions of the contract of employment it was argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that appellant under Clause 15 of t