RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PARAMJEET SINGH

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1Copy pinpoint1. Leave granted.

2Copy pinpoint2. The respondent was appointed as a conductor on a contractual B basis on 21 January 2006 by the appellant. The contractual appointment was for a period of one year or until the shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. The agreement (described as the contract letter) which was entered into between the appellant and the respondent stipulated as follows:

C “11. While working as a conductor if on inspection of vehicle en- route if any passenger is found without a ticket then in such a situation the second party would be removed from the temporary employment and to fulfill the loss, he would also be liable to pay the amount as determined by the Head Quarter. Apart from this the first party would be at liberty to proceed against the second D party under the prevention of without ticket travel act.”

3Copy pinpoint3. Clause 16 of the agreement stipulated that: “16. The first party will have the right to terminate the temporary appointment of the first party at any time without any notice.”

4Copy pinpoint4. The services of the respondent were dispensed with on 21 March 2007.

5Copy pinpoint5. Challenging the order of termination, the respondent filed a writ petition, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on 6 April 2016. The writ appeal was dismissed F on 19 September 2016 by a Division Bench of the High Court.

6Copy pinpoint6. The respondent has been served, but has not entered appearance.

7Copy pinpoint7. The sole ground on which the writ petition was allowed was that there was a breach of the principle of natural justice. G

8Copy pinpoint8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the High Court was in error, having regard to the fact that the nature of the appointment was purely contractual for a period of one year or until the shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. Moreover, the contract stipulates that the services of the respondent could be dispensed with without any notice.

RSRTC v. PARAMJEET SINGH [DR. DHANANJAYA Y 297 CHANDRACHUD, J.]

9Copy pinpoint9. We find merit in the submission. The terms of the appointment indicate that the respondent was on a purely contractual appointment and that the services could be dispensed with without notice at any stage.

10Copy pinpoint10. The learned Single Judge of the High Court relied upon a decision of this Court in Hari Ram Maurya v Union of India and others1. That case is, however, distinguishable since it was found by this Court that the removal was on the ground that the employee, though he was engaged on a temporary basis, was guilty of a charge of bribery.

11Copy pinpoint11. Having regard to the terms of the contractual engagement, we are of the view that the action of the appellant cannot be faulted. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. In consequence, the writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Devika Gujral Appeal allowed. D

E

F

G

H