Gopal Krishan vs Shimla Jal Prabandhan Nigam Limited & Anr.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

The petitioner retired as an Executive Engineer on 30.11.2022, from Himachal Jal Prabandhan Nigam Ltd. (respondent No.1. As per the petitioner, thereafter, an advertisement was issued by the said respondent in terms of Annexure P-1, dated 10.09.2022, for the post of Assistant Engineers/Managers and Junior Engineer. The petitioner applied for the post and in terms of Annexure P-2, dated 09.12.2022, he was appointed as a Sewerage Sector Expert on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. His grievance is that in terms of Annexure P-3, dated 29.12.2023, he was intimated that the matter of renewal/extension of the appointment of the petitioner as a Sewerage Sector Expert in terms of Appointment Letter dated 09.12.2022, was taken up with the Board of Directors, SJVNL in its 17^th Board Meeting held on 28.11.2023 and the Board had decided not to renew/extend the same.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the decision not to extend the Agreement of the petitioner is highly arbitrary, because at one hand, extension was granted to few, whereas on the other hand the same was denied to the petitioner. Learned Counsel further argued that impugned Annexure P-3 otherwise is also not sustainable in the eyes of law, because as per his instructions, in fact no Meeting of the Board of Directors was held on 28.11.2023 and the extension was thus, arbitrarily refused to the petitioner despite the fact that he was performing his duties diligently and there was no complaint etc. against him. He thus, submitted that as the termination of the Contract was per se bad, in the absence of there being any Resolution to this effect by the Board of Directors, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner has to be conferred the reliefs, as prayed for, in the petition. No other point was urged.

On a pointed query put to learned Counsel for the petitioner, as to whether, he was insisting on his contention that impugned Annexure P-3 was primarily bad in law, as according to the petitioner no Meeting of the Board of Directors was took place on 28.11.2023, learned Counsel submitted that these exactly were his instructions.

In the backdrop of this, the case was passed over for sometime and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Corporation was called upon to produce the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors, dated 28.11.2023.

When the matter was taken up in the post-lunch session, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Corporation produced the Minutes of the 17^th Board Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Shimla Jal Prabandhan Nigam Limited, held on 28.11.2023, at 5.00 p.m., photocopy of which is taken on record and perusal whereof demonstrates that in terms of Item No.17.22, on the subject to consider the matter regarding services of outsource employees, contractual employees and employees engaged after recruitment, the following Resolution was passed in the Meeting of the Board of Directors:-

In the backdrop of this, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Corporation argued that herein, the petitioner was re-engaged after his retirement and it was only after the term of the Contract was over that the Board of Directors took a decision to not renew the Contract of the petitioner alongwith certain other retirees according to the need of the Company. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the appointment in terms of Annexure P-2 was accepted by the petitioner knowing fully well of the terms thereof, including the currency and it is not as if, the services of the petitioner were terminated before the period of the Contract was over. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings, the documents on record including the Minutes of the Meeting of Board of Directors, dated 28.11.2023.

At this stage itself, this Court would like to observe that it was the categoric contention of the petitioner, though not so averred in the petition, that Annexure P-3 was bad in law, for the reason that no Meeting of the Board of Directors as was mentioned in the said Annexure was ever held. This contention of the petitioner is found to be totally incorrect, as the record produced by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 demonstrates that indeed a Meeting of the Board of Directors took place, in which the relevant Resolution was passed.

Beside this, the petitioner happens to be a retired employee of the respondent-Corporation. He was re-engaged in terms of Annexure P-2 for a particular period and thereafter, extension has not been granted to him after the expiry of the said period.

This Court is of the considered view that it is not a case where the services of the petitioner were dis-engaged or terminated during the currency of the Contract. Once the period of Contract was over, no indefeasible right was vested with the petitioner to seek the extension thereof.

In fact, according to this Court, respondent No.1 indeed was under no obligation to consider the case of the petitioner for extension, as the engagement of the petitioner automatically came to an end upon the expiry of the period of Contract. Further, as a conscious decision was taken by the Board of Directors of respondent No.1 that the services of the petitioner were no more required according to their need and a conscious decision was taken not to extend the Contract, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the said decision, in the absence of it being demonstrated that the condition was arbitrary or a result of some extraneous considerations.

In light of above observations, as this Court finds no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.