Rajesh Kumar Tiwari vs Union Of India And Ors

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing the action of the respondents in terminating his services vide order dated 8.1.2020 on the

ground that the Administration is not satisfied with his work and the competent authority has approved the termination order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's services were extended after one year contractual period upto 30.6.2020, however, in

between by giving him one month's notice, his services were terminated wrongfully. If there was any allegation, either enquiry should have been

conducted or a show cause notice should at least have been served upon him. Learned counsel has by way of second stay application also pointed out

that after terminating his services, the respondents has issued an advertisement to fill up the post of Consultant(Legal) and prays in the second stay

application that the post should not be filled up.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the writ petition would not be maintainable as against the respondent No.1-

Railways since it is a service matter and the matter should be taken up before Central Administrative Tribunal. Alternatively, it is submitted that the

respondent No.2- Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ""DFCCIL"") is a public sector undertaking

having its own separate administration set up and there is no relevance of Ministry of Railways. In view thereof, the same would not fall within the

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and writ petition therefore would not lie against the DFCCIL.

Learned counsel further submits that on merits also the petitioner does not have any case as the engagement was for a Post of Consultant(Legal),

which is a contractual post and the term was extended up to 30th June, 2020. However, as per terms of conditions of service, the petitioner's services

could be terminated in between by giving one month notice by either side. The respondents have complied with the said condition and order is

simplicitor and does not have any stigma attached to the same. Learned counsel also placed on record the documents to show that the management

and administration did not find the work satisfactory of the petitioner who was appointed as Consultant(Legal) for Court cases, but his opinions were

found to be contradictory of that of the panel lawyers, which resulted in dissatisfaction of his performance. However, the same could not be termed in

any manner to be stigmatic. Learned counsel submits that no right is created in favour of the petitioner.

I have considered the submissions of the writ petition as well as second stay application.

This court finds that the Union of India, Ministry of Railways has been impleaded as party only with the purpose to show that the DFCCIL is under

the Union of India, Ministry of Railways and Ministry of Railways is controlling body for DFCCIL. The said aspect is not denied by the respondents.

In view thereof, the DFCCIL would be treated as a body/ corporate of the Government of India as it is a Government of India enterprise. In view of

the law laid down in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas & Ors. Versus Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors: (2002) 5 SCC 11.1 It would

thus come within ambit of State within a meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and writ petition would therefore lie.

At the same time, this court also holds that the Central Administrative Tribunal do not have jurisdiction to hear such matters as DFCCIL has not

been notified under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 so as to come within CATs jurisdiction.

Having decided the aforesaid preliminary objections, this court further finds that so far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

alleging the order impugned dated 8.1.2020 to be illegal is concerned, this court finds that the same has been passed strictly in terms of conditions of

service of contract. The one month's notice has been given for termination of service which was purely a contractual engagement of a

Consultant(Legal).

Engagement of a Consultant(Legal) is purely on contractual basis and subject to satisfaction of the Administration for the services being provided

are legal consultancy. Thus, this court does not find any objection, if the concerned employer is not satisfied with the services, to the action of

termination it can also be issued during the period of contract as it is provided under the terms of contract. Hence, the order dated 8.1.2020 does not

warrant any interference.

Accordingly, this court does not find any merits for the writ petition, the same is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, first stay

application and second stay application also stand dismissed.

All the pending application stand dismissed.

No cost.