Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation vs Paramjeet Singh

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 4593 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 10907 of 2017)

Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Paramjeet Singh ....Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 Leave granted.

2 The respondent was appointed as a conductor on a contractual 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:

“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 Signature Not Verified party under the prevention of without ticket travel act.” Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.05.06 16:40:37 IST Reason: 2

3 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.”

4 The services of the respondent were dispensed with on 21 March

2007.

5 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 on 19

September 2016 by a Division Bench of the High Court.

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

7 The sole ground on which the writ petition was allowed was that there

was a breach of the principle of natural justice.

8 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.

9 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. 3

10 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.

11 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.

…………...…...….......………………........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Hemant Gupta]

New Delhi;

May 03, 2019

1 (2006) 9 SCC 167