IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9198 of 2011 1. Mrigendra Srivastava aged about 28 years, S/o Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Assistant Engineer, Electrical (FTB), Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Aurangabad (Bihar). 2. Ashish Kumar S/o Sri S.B.N. Sinha, Assistant Engineer, Electrical (FTB), Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Nawada (Bihar). 3. Vikash Kumar Rai, S/o Shri Prem Nath Rai, Assistant Engineer, Electrical (FTB), Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Aurangabad (Bihar) 4. Srimanta Kumar Roy, S/o Sri Khagendra Nath Roy, Junior Engineer (Electrical), Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Jamui (Bihar) 5. Ashoka Nand S/o Sri Paramanand, Junior Engineer Electrical (FTB) Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Aurangabad (Bihar) 6. Brijendra Kumar Singh S/o Sri Hawaldar Singh, Assistant Engineer, Electrical (FTB) Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Aurangabad (Bihar) 7. Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o sri Ram Asare Yadav Assistant Engineer, Electrical (FTB) Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Gopalganj (Bihar) ---Petitioners. Versus 1. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited ( A Government of India Enterprise) Registered office-B-9m Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi-122001. 2. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited ( A Government of India Enterprise) Eastern Region Transmission System-I H.Q.: Alankar Place (2nd,5th & 6th Floor) Boring Road, Patna-800001 through its personnel Officer. ---Respondents. ----------- 05 30.06.2011 Petitioners have filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction upon the respondents to allow them to continue to serve the respondent as Assistant Engineer Electrical (FTB)/Junior Engineer Electrical (FTB) on contract basis beyond the period of 30th June, 2011 in terms of the letters of their engagement. Relevant facts, in brief, are as under: On 17th September, 2008, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. ( for short ‘Corporation’) published an advertisement (Annexure-1) for engagement of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer on contract basis for a 2 fixed tenure on contract basis for strengthening and augmentation of the Distribution & Sub- Transmission System, Rural Electrification and other Consultancy Works in different States of the country. It was disclosed therein that appointment would be purely on fixed tenure basis for a period of 02 years which may be extended for a further period of 01 year depending upon the requirement(s) and based on periodical assessment of performance. Petitioners applied for those posts as they had requisite qualifications. They were permitted to take Walk-in-Interview and having been found suitable for such engagement they were offered engagement letters containing terms and conditions to which they were obliged to agree in black and white. Petitioners accepted the offer whereafter they were allowed to join. It is case of the petitioners that they were permitted to join their respective assignment(s) in the 1st of week of January 2009, whereafter they were posted on different places. On completion of fixed tenure/term of 02 years, the respondents came out with order(s) contained in Annexure-4 series, whereby their engagement(s) was extended for 06 months i.e. till 30.06.2011. It is the grievance of the petitioners that as per the terms and conditions of their engagement they were expecting extension of their engagement at least by 01 year but the respondents granted the extension only for 06 months which is an arbitrary exercise of power. Referring to Annexure-3, it is submitted that the officers of the respondent corporation in another region was granted extension of engagement for 01 year as per these terms and conditions of engagement whereas the same has been denied to the petitioners. To substantiate the same petitioner relied on averments made in paragraph 3 no. 12 wherein it is averred that on the same advertisement engagement on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineers in North Eastern Region, was/were offered and services of some of those officers have been extended for a period of 01 year. It is, thus, the case that they have been subjected to hostile discrimination. Two equals have been treated unequally. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent corporation which is on record. Petitioners have filed rejoinder thereto. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent Corporation. It is contended on behalf of the respondent(s) that the petitioners were engaged on contract basis for a fixed tenure. As per the terms and conditions of engagement, the fixed tenure was of 02 years which was extendable by one more year on the basis of requirement and appraisal of performance or till completion of project, whichever is earlier. Relying on averments made in paragraph nos. 22, 23 and 24 of the counter affidavit, it is contended that engagement of Engineers on contract basis was made by the respondent corporation for different regions of the country as would appear from the advertisement itself Annexure-1 for strengthening and augmentation of Distribution and Sub- Transmission System, Rural Electrification and other Consultancy Works. Works in different regions started on different time in various States. The project(s) undertaken by the respondent corporation in different regions are/were time bound projects. The extension of engagement is dependent upon the progress of the project in different States cannot be the same. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent corporation, on instruction, submitted that petitioners have already been noticed to appear for assessment of their performance so that their engagement can be extended by another period of 06 months subject to assessment of their performance. The aforesaid stand of the respondent corporation has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is agreed at Bar that petitioners were engaged on contractual basis for a fixed tenure which was extendable by 01 year as per the terms contemplated therein. The terms and conditions of engagement were spelt out to the petitioners to which they agreed. Parties shall, therefore, be governed by those terms and conditions of engagement. As per the terms and conditions of their engagement, on expiry of 02 years of their engagement and/or completion of the project, whichever is earlier, the personnel like the petitioners were to be disengaged. The corporation was, thus, entitled to dis-engage the petitioners on expiry of fixed tenure of 02 years as per the terms and conditions of engagement. No fault, thus, can be found on that score. Petitioners have raised an issue that in the matter of extension of engagement the petitioners have been treated unequally. Relevant pleading in this regard have already been noticed. It appears that engagements were made in different regions of the country. The respondents have stated that the projects works commenced on different times in different regions/States, and as such, recorded progress differently in various regions. The terms and conditions specifically state that extension of such personnel on contract basis shall depend upon the 5 progress of the project/works and assessment of their performance. In order to demonstrate hostile discrimination, petitioners are obliged to demonstrate with reference to pleadings supported by documents that the case of the petitioners are/were similar/identical in all respects with the case of personnel(s) engaged in different regions of the country for which such engagements were made. In my view, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that their case stand on the same footing as that of the case of employee/personnel cited in para 12. The said submission of the petitioners is, therefore, not sustainable in law. The aforesaid view has been taken by this Court in C.W.J.C.No 9635 of 2011 (Ratan Kumar Chauvey vs. The Union of India & Ors.) disposed of on 22.06.2011, which also related to extension of period of engagement on contract basis. Petitioners have already been noticed to appear for their assessment and it is not in dispute that they have responded to those notices. In that view of the matter also the plea of discrimination is not sustainable. In view of the aforesaid findings/discussions, this Court does not find merit in the application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is clarified that in case the petitioners subject themselves to interview as per notice for extension of the periods of engagement for another 06 months the present order shall not come in their way. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )