IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 439 (S/S) of 2009 Mohan Singh. … ………Petitioner. V e r s u s Union of India and others. ……..Respondents. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned counsel for petitioner. Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.04.2009 by which services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 15.05.2009. Further prayer has been made in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Warden in War Memorial Hostel, Ranikhet, District – Almora during the pendency of the writ petition. Brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 17.05.2005 the petitioner was appointed as Warden in War Memorial Hostel, KRC, Ranikhet, District – Almora in the pay scale of Rs. 3500 – 200 – 4500 without DA and allowances. He was asked to report on 01.06.2005 failing which the appointment order was treated to be cancelled automatically. In paragraph 5 of the order terms and conditions of the appointment were given whereas in para 9 the procedure of termination of service was given. Para 5 and 9 of the appointment order are quoted below: “5. Your terms and conditions are as given below: (a) You will be on probation for three months on assumption of your duty. On completion of stipulated period of probation, your services may be confirmed in the appointment by issuing a letter of confirmation subject to your work efficiency and conduct considered as satisfactory as also availability of vacancy at that time. However the appointment will be temporary. Your services are requisitioned on a casual basis and may be terminated by the appointing authority (undersigned) without assigning any reasons whatsoever. Your terms will adhere to the deed of contract signed between you and the appointing authority (undersigned). (b) You will work under the supervision of OIC Hostel (Accounts Officer). The Kumaon Regiment Centre, Ranikhet. (c) Your working hours will conform to the working hours of War Memorial Hostel. (d) You will be entitled to accn within hostel as available where you can live with your spouse and minor children (as an exception). (e) You will be entitled to free meal from Hotel ck house on as available basis. Personal cooking is not allowed to you in hostel premises/accn provided to you. (f) Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) will be deposited as security by you till you are employed by the Centre. The same will be refunded after realizing outstanding bills on termination of your service. No interest will be given on this amount. (9) Termination Of Service. Your services can be terminated at any time by given one month notice or one month pay in lieu thereof. Similarly, you will be at liberty to resign by given one month notice or surrendering one month pay in lieu thereof.” Thereafter on 08.06.2005 the petitioner entered into agreement and signed the agreement / deed of the contract with Secretary, War Memorial Hostel, KRC, Ranikhet, District – Almora for performing the duties of Warden in War Memorial Hostel, KRC, Ranikhet, District – Almora on contract basis for a total compensation of Rs. 3500/- per month starting from 08.06.2005 for a period of 12 months only. Terms of agreement are narrated as under: “(a). that the duties to be performed by Ex Subedar Mohan Singh are purely contractual in nature. (b). that the said contract is being signed by Account Officer, The Kumaon Regimental Centre in the capacity of ex-officio honorary Secretary of War Memorial Hostel and the account holder of the said non-public/regimental fund. (c) that the said compensation is proposed to be paid from a non-public/regimental fund. (d) that the consolidated compensation is paid from War Memorial Hostel Fund. This is Regimental Fund and not a Government Fund. The nature of job is contractual. (e) that said Ex Subedar Mohan Singh understands that this contract is purely temporary and does not confer the status of a temporary or a regular employee. The requirement of duties is for a causal and irregular period. (f) that the said duties do not pertain to any vacant or regular post and are for the purpose of a welfare work. (g) that in the case of misconduct on the part of said Ex Subedar Mohan Singh, the War Memorial Hostel(Name of institution) can rescind this contract after giving one month notice.” After signing the contract the petitioner joined the post and was paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month. He was permitted to work as Warden till 15.05.2009. On 21.04.2009 the respondent no. 2 passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 15.05.2009. At the time of termination of engagement the petitioner was being paid Rs. 4100/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that petitioner was appointed in pursuance of the appointment order dated 17.05.2005 and in view of condition 5 (a) of the appointment order the petitioner stood confirmed on completion of probation period of three months. According to him, since the petitioner was confirmed employee his services could not be terminated without giving him opportunity of hearing and therefore, the order dated 21.04.2009 is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. He further submitted that respondents also violated the condition no. 9 of the appointment order which provides that services of the petitioner could be terminated by giving him one month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu thereof. But in the present case vide order dated 21.04.2009 the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 15.05.2009 without complying the condition no. 9 of the appointment order. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the termination order deserves to be set-aside as same was passed in violation of condition no. 9 of the appointment order. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis as is apparent from the agreement dated 08.06.2005. Smt. Anjali Bhargava further submitted that Payment of compensation was being made to him from the Regimental Fund. She further submitted that neither the petitioner was appointed on regular basis nor he was made confirmed as claimed by him. According to her since the engagement of the petitioner was purely on contract basis and his engagement could be terminated any time, there is no illegality in the order dated 21.04.2009. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this court is of the view that petitioner was given contractual engagement as per appointment letter dated 17.05.2005. This fact is also clear from termination order by which attention of the petitioner was invited to para 9 of the appointment letter. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner was not appointed in pursuance of appointment order dated 17.05.2005. After issuance of appointment order the petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent no. 2. He accepted his engagement on contract basis for compensation of Rs. 3500/- per month starting from 08.06.2005 for a period of 12 months only. His engagement was not extended in writing but he continued to work on contract basis. Since the petitioner was not appointed on regular basis and was given engagement on contract basis, the question of granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner does not arise. As far as violation of condition no. 9 is concerned, it is clear from the impugned order that this condition was violated as vide order dated 21.04.2009 the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 15.05.2009. Thus, one month’s notice as required in appointment order dated 17.05.2005 was not complied. At this, Smt. Anjali Bhargava made statement at bar that petitioner was paid salary upto 20.05.2009 and he accepted the salary for a period of one month i.e. upto May 20, 2009. In my view, once the petitioner has accepted the salary for a period of one month, he cannot be permitted to raise a plea that termination order dated 21.04.2009 was passed in violation of condition no. 9 of the appointment order. In view of the above discussion, writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to retain official residential accommodation till 31.08.2009. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J) 11.08.2009 SKS