IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1910 of 2001 Between: D.Rama Rao, S/o.D.Jagga Rao R/o. H.No.1-419, Lankelapalem,. Parvathinilayam, Parvada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Rep by its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Visakhapatnam. 2 Dy.chief Personnel Manager, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd Respondent issued in proceedings No.PL/NER/686, Dt.10.6.1999 as illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : MR.V.RAVINDER RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1910 of 2001 O R D E R : The petitioner herein was appointed as chargeman on contract basis in the 1st respondent Visakhapatnam Steel Plant for a period of one year on consolidated payment of Rs.9,160/- per quarter vide proceedings dated 30.01.1997. His services were extended for a further period of one year by letter dated 27.3.1998 enhancing the consolidated payment of Rs.11,160/- per quarter. Thereafter, though there was a proposal for further extension of services of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent by order dated 10.6.1999 terminated the petitioner’s engagement on contract basis. The said order dated 10.6.1999 is under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had served the organisation for more than two years four months to the entire satisfaction of his superiors, the impugned action of the respondents in terminating the petitioner’s contract without any notice is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was engaged only on contract basis and that his services were discontinued and the contract was discontinued on 10.6.1999 after paying him a sum of Rs.11,358.40 ps towards one month’s fee in lieu of notice period as per the terms of the appointment order. The fact that the petitioner was paid compensation in lieu of one month’s notice has not been disputed by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary on contract basis. Clause (f) of Appointment Order made it clear that the contract engagement can be terminable by either side by giving one month’s notice. In the circumstances, the action of the respondents cannot held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. So far as the further contention that the services of one K.V.S. Jagadishwar Rao, who was appointed on contract basis subsequent to the petitioner’s appointment were regularized, whereas the petitioner was denied such benefit is concerned, it is explained in the counter-affidavit that the said Jagadishwar Rao was engaged in the executive cadre as Assistant Manager (Operations), whereas the petitioner was in non- executive cadre. Hence, the action of the respondents cannot be held to be discriminatory merely on the ground that the services of the said Jagadishwar Rao were regularized. May be that there was a proposal by the concerned Manager of the 1st respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner on the ground that he had experience in the work relating to ladle furnace, however admittedly the same was not accepted. By virtue of the mere proposal, the petitioner does not acquire any legally enforceable right to compel the respondents to continue the petitioner in service. Viewed from any angle, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 23-04-2009 gbs