IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3418 of 2011 Prem Chandra Ojha, son of Late Jai Narain Oja, resident of Mohalla 143, Anandpuri, P.S. S.K.Puri, Patna …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Women Development Corporation through the principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Main(Old) Secretariat, Patna. 3. Managing Director, Women Development Corporation, 2nd Floor, Indira Bhawan, R.C.Singh Path, Bailey Road, Patna-1. …Respondents For the petitioner :Mr. P.C.Oha (in person) For the Women Development Corporation :Mr. Binod Kumar For the State :Mr.Thakur Jai Singh, AC to SC 2 ----------- 04. 12.07.2011 Heard the petitioner in persons, learned counsel for the Women Development Corporation (for short „the Corporation) and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to the order contained in annexure-1. The order at Annexure-1 reads as under: “Sub-Regarding termination of Your Contractual Appointment as „Desk Officer‟. As per Clause-5 of the terms & conditions of contract entered by you with WDC your contract is hereby terminated from today i.e. 21.01/2011 and one month‟s salary is being enclosed herewith. Further your are directed to handover all files, documents, keys and any other equipment/material/I.D. Card etc. that has been given to you by WDC to Sri Mithilesh Kumar, Assistant, WDC, with immediate effect.” It is admitted position that the petitioner, in response to an advertisement for engagement of official/personnel on contract basis, applied for and was offered letter of engagement 2 containing certain terms and conditions, as reflected from the offer of appointment/engagement (Annexure-3). Clause-5 thereof reads as under: “5. This appointment is terminable by giving you one months notice in writing or payment of one month‟s remuneration in lieu thereof. You may also terminate this contract by giving one month‟s notice in writing or payment of one month‟s remuneration thereof.” It is agreed at Bar that engagement of the petitioner was for a fixed term and on the basis of a contract. There is no dispute that the party shall be governed by the terms of the contract. The respondents have invoked one of the terms/conditions of engagement and have disengaged the petitioner after giving one month‟s salary in lieu of notice as would be evident from Annexure-1. It has been argued that the order disengaging him from the assignment is contrary to law. Diverse submissions have been made to show that the petitioner was not relenting to the evil design of the senior officer(s) and was pointing out defects/irregularities which earned him the aforesaid order of disengagement. It is contended that the order does not indicate the reason for which the petitioner has been disengaged invoking Clause 5 of the agreement arrived at by and between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that this Court on numerous occasions has held that in such matters the parties would be bound by the terms of agreement. It is submitted that the petitioner, as per the terms 3 of engagement, could have also disengaged himself on giving one month‟s notice. According to respondents, in such matter assigning reason for invoking the said clause is not at all required in law. It has also been contended that this Court in CWJC No. 9198 of 2011 (Mrigendra Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr.) has taken similar view while disposing of the said writ application by order dated 30.06.2011. Copy of the said order has been placed on record which is marked „X‟. In a case of engagement on contract basis, the law does not postulate assigning reasons for invoking the terms of contract. The submission of the petitioner, in my view, is not sustainable in law. The application lacks merit which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )