Remanded

Sanghamitra Mohanty v. Hscc (India) Limited and Anr.

Delhi HC1 May 2018W.P.(C)/4561/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an Assistant Manager on contract, approached the High Court for continuation of tenure and absorption. The single judge found the respondent's rejection order cryptic and silent on petitioner's representation. The court ordered the respondent to reconsider the representation and pass a speaking order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Response to reconsider the representation of 25.02.2018 and pass a speaking order within four weeks.

Sanghamitra Mohanty Vs Hscc (India) Limited and Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: May 01, 2018

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 4561/2018 & CM APP Nos.17701-03/2018

¶4

SANGHAMITRA MOHANTY ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr.Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior Advocate with Mr.Aniruddha Purushotam and Mr.Satyabrata Panda, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

HSCC (INDIA) LIMITED AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Ms.Saakshi Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent No. 2-UOI

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶9

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶10

1 Vide letter dated 07.10.2015 ( Annexure P-4 ), the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Manager on contractual basis for a period of two years. On the strength of the aforesaid appointment letter, petitioner vide representation of 25.02.2018 ( Annexure P-7 Colly .) had sought continuation of tenure while relying upon Clause 11 of Appointment letter ( Annexure P-4) . The aforesaid clause specifies that such an appointee shall be eligible for consideration for absorption on regular basis subject to availability of vacancies and consistent record of satisfactory performance as per the recruitment rules.

¶11

2 Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the post of

¶12

W.P.(C) 4561/2018

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

Assistant Manager in question has been advertised by first respondent and the said advertisement is also for appointment on contract/absorption basis. Reliance is placed on decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P (C) No.3512/2014 titled: Abhinav Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. Delhi Technological University & Anr. decided on 20^th January, 2015 to submit that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contract employees, as such an action discloses arbitrariness. It is submitted that petitioner’s representation (Annexure P-7 Colly.) is quite detailed one and it has been summarily rejected vide order of 5^th March, 2018 (Annexure P-8) . Despite service of advance notice, none appears on behalf of the first respondent.

¶15

3 Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order of 5^th March, 2018 (Annexure P-8) , I find that it is cryptic one and it nowhere deals with the stand taken by the petitioner in the Representation ( Annexure P-7 Colly .). In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to call upon first respondent to reconsider petitioner’s representation ( Annexure P-7 Colly .) and to pass a speaking order on petitioner’s Representation of 25.02.2018 ( Annexure P-7 Colly .) within a period of four weeks and to convey the fate of Representation to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that the petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be. Till it is so done, the process of filling up of one post of Assistant Manager (E-1) be not finalized. The first respondent be apprised of this order forthwith, to ensure its compliance.

¶16

4 With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition and applications are disposed of.

¶17

W.P.(C) 4561/2018

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for petitioner.

¶20

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶21

MAY 01, 2018 neelam

¶22

W.P.(C) 4561/2018

¶23

Page 3 of 3

Sanghamitra Mohanty v. Hscc (India) Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanghamitra Mohanty v. Hscc (India) Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubh Impex Vs Union of India & Ors.

J.Ram Prasad Vs UOI & Ors.

Bhupinder Singh Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Raichel P Abraham Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limit

Supriti Bishwas & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Sarita Vs Registrar Cooperative Societie

Shashi Dua Vs Registrar Cooperative Societie

Uk Paints (Overseas) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, New Delhi

Raichel P Abraham Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limit

Union of India and Anr. Vs Tanmoy Kumar Das

Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Ms. Jyoti Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Ram Karan Vs Union of India & Anr.

Uma Mitra Vs Shyama Prasad Vidyalaya Managing Committee and Ors.