Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 673 (JHR)

Munni Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2014-06-30

P.P.BHATT, R.BANUMATHI

body2014
Order 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 12.11.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3697 of 2013, in and by which the writ Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant was appointed as Computer operator on contract basis and that her contract was not renewed by the Block Development Officer and the order of termination does not suffer from any illegality. 2. The appellant was appointed as a Computer Operator in the Gomia Sub-Division, District Bokaro on 9.11.2006 on payment of honorarium of Rs.100/- per day and subsequently honorarium was enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month. Subsequently by letter no. 1932 dated 10.9.2012 the honorarium of the Computer Operator was enhanced to Rs.9,500/- per month. For the Computer Operators working in the various districts, vide different orders the Government of Jharkhand enhanced the honorarium to Rs.10,500/- but the appellant was not paid the same. The appellant has given a representation to the concerned respondents, seeking for enhancement of honorarium but the same was not considered. 3. The 7th respondent-Block Development Officer, Gomia terminated the appellant from services vide order no. 715 A dated 2.5.2013 (vide Annexure-7). The appellant had given representation on 4.6.2013 to reconsider the order of termination but the respondents had not -taken any action on the same. Challenging the order of termination dated 2.5.2013, the appellant filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3697 of 2013 and the same was dismissed by holding that since the contract of the appellant was not renewed and she had also mis-conducted herself by misbehaving with other employees and disobeyed the order of the superiors, her service was dispensed with and the order of termination does not suffer from any illegality in the impugned order. 4. Challenging the order dismissing the writ petition, the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Heard Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, J.C to S.C. I for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been appointed as computer operator on contract basis in the year 2006 and that she continued to work till 2013 and while so the appellant was terminated on false and unsustainable grounds. Jay Shankar Tiwary, J.C to S.C. I for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been appointed as computer operator on contract basis in the year 2006 and that she continued to work till 2013 and while so the appellant was terminated on false and unsustainable grounds. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that during the period 2006-2013, no complaint whatsoever was received against the appellant and while so the order passed (vide Annexure 7), is on false grounds and the said order of termination being stigmatic one and, therefore, unsustainable. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents drawn our attention to the order passed by Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro (Annexure 1 of the memo of appeal) and submitted that services of the computer operators, who were appointed on contractual basis can be extended on the basis of their merit and the appellant did not satisfy the parameters and, therefore, her services was terminated. It is further submitted as the appellant was appointed on contractual basis, she had no right to continue in service and when her performance was not satisfactory, the 7th respondent passed the order of termination and, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also the materials available on record. 10. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as computer operator on contractual basis on 9.11.2006 on payment of honorarium. Contractual services of the appellant was extended time to time from 2006. Vide Annexure 7 dated 2.5.2013, the services of the appellant was terminated on the grounds that the appellant was negligent and was quarreling with her colleagues, and that she was not obeying the order of superiors and not doing data entry properly in the system and, therefore, contract of the appellant was not renewed. By perusal of Annexure-7, we find that it is not a termination simplicitor rather the services of the appellant was terminated on certain allegations attaching stigma to the services of the appellant. As the appointment of the appellant was on contractual basis and even though the appellant had no right to continue in service, there cannot be a stigmatic order of termination without affording an opportunity. As the appointment of the appellant was on contractual basis and even though the appellant had no right to continue in service, there cannot be a stigmatic order of termination without affording an opportunity. Since the allegations levelled against the appellant in the order of termination (vide Annexure 7) is in the nature of affecting her future, we are of the view that an opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to the appellant. The learned Single Judge did not keep in view that the order of termination was stigmatic one, the learned Single Judge was not right in observing that the appellant was on contractual basis and the same was not renewed hence her service was dispensed with. Since the order of termination, vide Annexure-7, (dated 2.5.2013) is a stigmatic one, the same is quashed. Hence, the order passed by the writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 3697 of 2013 is set aside and this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the matter afresh and afford opportunity to the appellant and pass fresh order in accordance with law preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.