AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 372 wordsL. Narayana Swamy, CJ
Perusal of office order dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure A-5), which resulted in termination/discontinuation of the petitioner from service, shows that his services were engaged by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu by allowing him to enter into a contract on 16.06.2015 for a period of six months. Thereafter, he remained absent from duties w.e.f. 1st July, 2015 without there being any information. It is the case of the petitioner, as stated in the petition, that since his absence was due to the health reasons, therefore, his discontinuation from service is arbitrary on the part of the respondents. Hence, he filed the present petition to set aside the office order dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure A-5). Further, he also sought direction to the respondents to renew his contract w.e.f. 01.05.2015 to 31.10.2015.
Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the engagement of the petitioner was purely on contract basis and not on the basis of any Policy or Regulation. The petitioner was engaged as a Peon to do the day-to-day requirements as per the contract but in view of his absence from duty, his services were discontinued w.e.f. 03.09.2015. Thus, at this juncture, it is not appropriate for the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner.
We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents and also gone through the record.
The services of the petitioner were engaged by the respondents on contract basis, but he remained absent from duties, without there being any information, resulting in discontinuation of his services vide office order dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure A-5) and till today no evidence has been produced by the petitioner to show as to whether he is continuing or not. The prayer of the petitioner for renewal of contract, which was from 1.5.2015 to 31.10.2015, cannot be considered as his initial engagement is only on contract basis, thus cannot claim any right of continuation.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that discontinuation of the services of the petitioner is neither arbitrary nor in violation of any provisions of law. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.