Termination of contractual employment without adhering to the mandatory notice period or providing salary in lieu of notice, as specified in the appointment terms, is void and violates the principles of natural justice.

1¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

Petitioner [Dr. Bharat Bhushan Bhardwaj], a retired Medical Officer having been re-appointed as Medical Officer through the Rogi Kalyan Samiti, has come up before this Court, seeking following reliefs:-

“1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the termination of appointment/ service letters being Annexure P-4( Colly) and direct Respondents by issuing Writ of Mandamus and allow the Petitioner to complete their tenure of remaining months or in alternative release the salary for the remaining period of service of the Petitioner; &

2. That the Respondents may be directed to release one month’s and six days salary to the Petitioner along with interest from the date of termination of appointment of the Petitioner.”

2. Case as set up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner [Dr. Bharat Bhushan Bhardwaj] after having retired from service of the State Government was reappointed as Medical Officer on contract bashis through Rogi Kalyan Samities (RKS) of Regional Hospital, Una (H.P.), on the basis of Government approval dated 27.09.2010 [Annexure P-1] for posting in ESI Dispensary Mehatpur. Pursuant to the approval, the Medical Secretary [RKS] Una, issued the appointment letter on 01.10.2010 [Annexure P-2] at the fixed emoluments of Rs. 26,250/- and Rs.3,000/- per month as incentive for a period of one year, which was extendable by the Authorities. Petitioner joined as such in October, 2016 and his contractual appointment was extended from time to time. The contract was lastly extended for one year from 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2013 as per the terms and conditions of Contract-Agreement dated 01.10.2012 [Annexure P-3]. While working as such, the Respondent No.2- Director Health Services forwarded a communication to all Chief Medical Officers on 29.05.2013 [Annexure P-4 (Colly.)] and based on the aforesaid communication, the Respondent No. 3- Chief Medical Officer Una disengaged the services of the pethitioner on 06.06.2013.

3. In above backdrop, the grievance of the petitioner is that his services were abruptly disengaged on 06.06.2013 w.e.f. 31.05.2013 [Annexure P-4, Colly.] illegally, without giving a prior notice, without affording a personal hearing and in violation of Condition No. 1 of the approval letter dated 27.09.2010 [Annexure P-1] and Condition No. 6 of appointment order dated 01.10.2010 [Annexure P-2] of Condition No. 4 of Contract-Agreement dated 01.10.2012 [Annexure P-3] and therefore, the disengagement was liable to be set aside.

4. Upon issuance of notice, the State Authorities filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 24.02.2015, with the stand that there was no requirement of one month’s prior notice of payment of one month’s remuneration before dispensing with the services of the petitioner. It is averred that the decision to dispense with the services, was taken, uniformly in case of all reappointed Medical Officers, throughout the State. It was averred that in viehw of the uniform decision taken by the Government, no notice nor any hearing was required to be given to the petitioner.

5. Heard, Mr. Vipul Sharda, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the Respondents-State and gone through the records.

6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances, the Impugned order da