Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 177 (BOM)

Iswar D Parwar v. State Of Goa

2021-01-27

BHARATI H.DANGRE, M.S.SONAK

body2021
JUDGMENT M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. L. Raghunandan for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Advocate General along with Mr. Geetesh Shetye, the learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner questions termination of his contractual services vide the impugned order dated 11th December, 2019, which took effect from 9th January, 2020. 4. The appointment of the Petitioner was purely contractual. Therefore, ordinarily, the Petitioner could not have claimed any reinstatement in service even if the Petitioner were to establish that the termination was contrary to the provisions of the contract. The Petitioner's remedy would normally lie in the realm of damages. 5. Be that as it may, the notings placed on record along with the affidavit of the Director of Health Services, give an impression that the foundation of the Petitioner's termination was the complaints which the Petitioner made in the matter of recruitment process to the post of Insect Collector or the proceedings instituted by the Petitioner before this Court. 6. The learned Advocate General pointed out that the representations of the Petitioner were not made through proper channel, but directly to the higher authorities and this is impermissible under service rules. Assuming this is so, the foundation of the termination would, nevertheless, be some presumed misconduct on the part of the Petitioner. Admittedly, there was not even a show-cause notice issued to the Petitioner before the impugned order was made. 7. After the matter was argued for some time, the learned Advocate General made a statement that the Petitioner would be paid the consolidated emoluments at the rate of Rs. 10,607/- per month, for the period between 9th January, 2020 and 22nd July, 2020, within a period of 8 weeks from today. He pointed out that there was nothing wrong in the termination of the Petitioner's services and at the highest, the Petitioner can claim for this relief in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. Mr. L. Raghunandan, on instructions, states that the Petitioner will be satisfied if he is paid the aforesaid emoluments, particularly, since, the contractual appointment was to conclude on 22nd July, 2020. 9. 8. Mr. L. Raghunandan, on instructions, states that the Petitioner will be satisfied if he is paid the aforesaid emoluments, particularly, since, the contractual appointment was to conclude on 22nd July, 2020. 9. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of by directing the Respondents to pay the aforesaid amount consistent with the statement made by the learned Advocate General within a period of 8 weeks from today. 10. Rule in this Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order.