HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 14549/2008 Date of Decision: December 01, 2011 Chander Shekhar ……. Petitioner Versus H.P. Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) On 3.5.2005 (Annexure A-4), petitioner was engaged as a Utility Worker (House Keeping) on contractual basis for deployment in Club House, Manali. His appointment was made by the General Manager, Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited. No separate agreement of contract was entered into between the parties. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred under Article 65(15), the Board of Directors of Tourism Corporation has framed regulations by the name of Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (Staff) Regulations. Regulation 2(1)(b) specifically provides that terms and conditions of contract employee may vary with the regulations. In the instant case, as already noticed, there is no such separate contract. In my view, Regulation 2(1)(b) would take in its sweep appointments made on contractual basis. Regulation 19(3)(b) specifically provides that in a case of temporary employee, one month’s notice would be required to be given to 2 an employee prior to termination of his service. Option is also there to pay salary in lieu thereof. However, in the instant case, respondent Corporation has chosen not to comply with Regulation 19(3)(b) at all. It appears that petitioner had certain other grievances with the respondent Corporation. He had raked up issues, which were perhaps found not to be palatable and in fact vide letter dated 29.9.2006 he was asked by the General Manager of the respondent-Corporation to withdraw proceedings initiated by him before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Allegedly since he did not comply with the said letter, on 1.12.2006 (Annexure A-8) he was disengaged ‘forthwith’. It cannot be disputed that between 3.5.2005 and 1.12.2006, petitioner had been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his employer. In that regard, there is no grievance made out against the petitioner. 3. Since order of petitioner’s disengagement is liable to be set aside solely on the ground that respondents have not adhered to the regulations framed/adopted by them, I am not going into the question as to whether respondents have interfered/impleaded with the course of justice or not. 4. The Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. & Anr. Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa(2), (2009) 4 SCC 299, has held that even though relationship between the parties as employer and employee is contractual, but the right to enforce contract of service would be prohibited in terms of provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, except where conditions of service are governed by statute or statutory regulation and in the event mandatory provisions thereof are breached, which in fact is the position in the instant case. Consequently, order dated 1.12.2006 3 (Annexure A-8) is quashed. Noticeably under interim order dated 19.12.2006, petitioner has continued to serve with the respondents. 5. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. December 01, 2011 (rana)