IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9635 of 2011 RATAN KUMAR CHAUVEY S/O- DHAYAN SHANKAR CHAUVEY, R/O- VILLAGE & P.O.- PALHI PATTI, P.S.- CHOLAPUR, DISTRICT- VARANASI (U.P.) PRESENTLY OSTED AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), DMA/RE-GOPALGANJ, UNDER POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REGIONAL HR DEPARTMENT, ER-1, PATNA. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA. 2. THE DEPUTY MANAGER (HR), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, REGIONAL HR DEPARTMENT, ER-1, PATNA, 5TH FLOOR, ALANKAR PLACE, BORING ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, POWER GRID EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRUST, CC. GURGAON, HARYANA. 4. THE D.M.S./R.E., GOPALGANJ. …… Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, C.G.C ----------- 2 22.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Union of India. Petitioner has impugned Office Order No. 91 of 2011 dated 3.5.2011 (Annexure-5) whereby he has been informed about his dis-engagement as Junior Engineer (Electrical) w.e.f. 12.5.2011 (A.N.) as the fixed tenure of his engagement was to expire on that day. Petitioner was offered letter of engagement as Junior Engineer on fixed tenure basis by the respondents vide communication dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure-1). He was required to go through the terms of engagement on fixed tenure and submit his acceptance. The petitioner submitted his acceptance whereafter he was engaged as Junior Engineer 2 w.e.f. 13.5.2009. Relevant condition set out in the offer of engagement as Junior Engineer on fixed tenure basis are as under: “We are pleased to issue this offer to engage you as Junior Engineer on Fixed Tenure Basis in our Corporation for a maximum period of two years which may be extended by one more year on the basis of requirement and assessment of performance or till completion of project, whichever is earlier. The engagement is subject to yoru medical fitness which will be ascertained by POWERGRID through our hospital on the day of your reporting. (In case of physically handicapped candidates the post is identified for Orthopaedically Handicapped – One Leg (OH- OL) and Hearing handicapped – Partially Deaf (HH-PD) only. The percentage of disability should be 40 % or more)…………. The contractual engagement will automatically come to an end on the expiry of aforesaid period of completion of project whichever is earlier. As the contract is for a fixed period, the contractual engagement will not confer on you any lien and/or right, whatsoever, for regularization of your service in the company. The contractual engagement can be terminated by either party at any time by giving three months notice in writing or payment of 03 months salary in lieu thereof. “ On expiry of one year of engagement, he was allowed to continue for the next year in terms of the aforesaid letter of offer of engagement as would appear from Office Order No. 205 of 2010 dated 10.8.2010 (Annexure-3). By the impugned order, he was informed about his dis-engagement as Junior Engineer on fixed tenure basis on completion of 02 years of engagement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the terms and conditions of engagement, he could have 3 been continued for 01 year which was based on two conditions namely requirement and assessment of performance. It is next contended that persons who were allowed to join the duties as Junior Engineer (Electrical) on fixed tenure basis after the petitioner has been allowed extension for certain period whereas the petitioner has not been granted the aforesaid privilege. Learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the impugned order as violative of principles of natural justice and result of colourable exercise of power as it seeks to discriminate between the two employees. He relies on averments made in paragraph 8 which is quoted hereinbelow: “8. That in violation of principle of Natural Justice and also in violation of requirement condition of Corporation office order no. 91 of 2011 dated 3.5.2011 has been communicated to the petitioner on Website of the Corporation which has not been receipt by the petitioner by which the petitioner has been ordered to be release from his post with effect from 12.5.2011 in discriminatory manner because service of one junior stand at serial no. 10 has been extended for further one year which is not justified in the eye of law.” Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was engaged for a fixed period of 02 years on contract basis. The case of the petitioner would, therefore, be covered by the terms of the contract set out in the offer/letter of engagement. It is submitted that as per the conditions stipulated therein, the contractual engagement was to come to an end on the expiry of aforesaid period or completion of project whichever is earlier. It is next submitted 4 that based on the pleadings on record, petitioner cannot be said to have been discriminated in the matter of disengagement and/or his release from engagement as Junior Engineer on fixed tenure basis. It is admitted position that petitioner was engaged on contractual basis for a fixed tenure. The terms and conditions of engagement were spelt out to the petitioner to which he agreed. In such view of the matter, the parties shall be governed by the terms and conditions of engagement. The terms and conditions specifically contemplate that on expiry of 02 years or of the tenure/engagement and/or completion of project whichever is earlier, the personnel will be disengaged. As about the plea of discrimination meted out to the petitioner is concerned, this Court finds that the pleadings on record are deficient inasmuch as the relevant order respecting the employees claimed to be junior to the petitioner in the matter of engagement but retained by extending period of his engagement has not been brought on record. It has also not been shown by the petitioner that policy of last come first go was ever contemplated in the matter of release/disengagement of personnel(s) engaged on fixed tenure/contractual basis. In order to demonstrate the case of discrimination, the petitioner has to plead all relevant facts with reference to the terms and conditions of engagement and order relied upon. 5 If several personnels are engaged by one order or one go and some of them joined a day or two after the joining of the one, it cannot be said that the said person would rank junior. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent Corporation in the matter of disengagement/release on completion of 02 years of contractual period, adopted the policy/principle of last come first go. Retention for further fixed period of such personnel is dependent upon at least two factors as is evident from Annexure-1. Petitioner thus has failed to demonstrate that two equals in all respects have been treated unequally. In fairness to the petitioner, the Court notices the submission of the counsel regarding non-payment of provident fund amount till date to the petitioner. This Court finds that specific pleading(s) to that effect have not been made in the application. The impugned order itself records that the petitioner is required to produce no-dues certificates whereafter all his dues shall be settled. Let the petitioner comply with the aforesaid direction contained in Annexure-5 whereafter the respondent shall release all the dues payable to the petitioner forth with. The application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)