IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7016 of 2011 Dhananjay Kumar son of Sri Ranbir Singh, R/o village Kharuara, P.O. Chero, P.S.Harnaut, Dist. Nalanda. ---Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Home Commissioner, Home Department, Bihar Patna. 3. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Home Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Bihar Police Bhawan Nirman Nigam near premises of B.M.P. 5 Kautilya Nagar, Patna. 5. The Additional Director General-cum-Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar Police Bhawan Nirman Nigam near premises of B.M.P.5, Kautilya Nagar,Patna. 6. The Secretary, Bihar Police Bhawan Nirman Nigam near premises of B.M.P. 5, Kautilya Nagar,Patna. 7. The Chief Engineer, Bihar Police Bhawan Nirman Nigam near premises of B.M.P. 5, Kautilya Nagar, Patna. 8. The Superintending Engineer, Works Division I-cum Monitoring Circle, Bihar Police Bhawan Nirman Nigam near premises of B.M.P. 5, Kautilya Nagar,Patna. 9. The Executing Engineer, Hajipur Division, Bihar Police Bhawan Nirman Nigam, Hajipur, Dist. Vaishali. 10. The Assistant Engineer, Siwan sub-division, Bihar Police Bhawan Nirman Nigam, Siwan. ---Respondents. ----------- 03. 15.07.2011 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents Board, and Mr. T. Khan, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate no.4 for the State. Petitioner was engaged on contract basis as Junior Engineer by the respondent Bihar Police Bhawan Nirman Nigam. It is admitted at Bar that the advertisement as well as the terms and conditions of his engagement/appointment contained a Clause that the incumbent can be disengaged on giving 01 month notice and/or payment in lieu thereof. The engaged personnel like the petitioner was also given the option to be disengaged after giving one month notice. The respondents have 2 disengaged the petitioner invoking the aforesaid Clause as would appear from order contained in Annexure-4 which has been impugned in the present writ petition. Petitioner has not brought on record the advertisement in response whereof he was allowed to take Walk-in-Interview and order of engagement (Annexure-1) was passed. However, it is admitted by learned counsel that engagement was on contract basis and letter/offer of engagement contained the aforesaid terms/conditions. It is submitted that before disengaging him invoking the said Clause of the agreement the respondents were required to give him a show cause. It is next contended that the order of disengagement states that his service was found unsatisfactory which is a stigma. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that if the petitioner is engaged on contract basis then the parties thereto shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract. The respondent authorities have invoked one of the conditions of the contract for disengaging him. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Law is settled in this regard. If the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis for a fixed tenure with certain terms and conditions to which he agreed then he cannot be heard submitting that before disengaging him a show cause notice was required to be served. He has not been able to show from the terms and conditions of engagement that any such show cause notice is contemplated therein. This Court, in somewhat similar/identical circumstance, has taken a view in C.W.J.C. 3 No. 9198 of 2011 (Mrigendra Srivastava & Ors. vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited & Anr.), and C.W.J.C.No. 3418 of 2011 (Prem Chandra Ojha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) that personnel engaged on contract basis can be disengaged invoking the Clause of the contract/agreement. No fault, thus, can be found with the order which has been impugned in the present case. Before parting with the case one submission of the petitioner requires to be noticed. It has been contended that the order disengaging him (as contained in Annexure-4) recites that his working with the respondent authority was found unsatisfactory. It has been contended that this may be a stigma. Since I have already held that respondents were entitled to invoke the Clause of the contract for disengaging him, the aforesaid finding, in my view, seems to be redundant. This Court, therefore, holds that the comment on his work as unsatisfactory shall not be treated as any stigma. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )