Disposed

Amarendra Deka v. the Energy and Resources Institute and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Dec 2021WP(C)/5528/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged termination letter citing lack of notice as contract expired naturally rather than terminated early. Court held notice conditions apply to termination during contract, not expiry, and disposed petition directing release of dues after clearance submission.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to submit clearance certificate; respondent to consider claim within 4 weeks if submitted within 6 weeks of order.

Amarendra Deka Vs the Energy and Resources Institute… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010249402014

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5528/2014

¶5

AMARENDRA DEKA

¶6

S/O SRI HARINATH DEKA, PERMANENT R/O GOMURA, P.O. and P.S. SARTHEBARI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781307

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE ENERGY and RESOURCES INSTITUTE and 5 ORS REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3, CRESCENT ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, BANGALORE-01

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE DARBARI SETH BLOCK IHC COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-3

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR HR

¶11

THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE DARBARI SETH BLOCK IHC COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-3

¶12

4:THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR

¶13

THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL CENTRE CHACHAL HENGRABARI EXPRESS HIGH WAY GHY-36

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

5:THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL SECTION THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE DARBARI SETH BLOCK IHC COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-3

¶16

6:THE RESEARCH ASSOCIATE BIOREMEDIATION WORK ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY DIVISION THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL CENTRE CHACHAL HENGRABARI EXPRESS HIGH WAY GHY-3

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS.A DEVI

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : MS.A DEKA

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY Order

¶21

17.12.2021

¶22

Heard Mrs. A Devi, learned legal Aid counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J Patowary, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶23

The brief case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant on 24.10.2009 by the respondent authority initially for a period of six months and thereafter said appointment was extended from time to time. According to the petitioner, he was relieved from the said engagement by the respondent authority on 13.05.2014. Such order is challenged in this writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that a writ in the nature of certiorari

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

needs to be issued by setting aside the impugned letter dated 13.05.2014. The ground for challenge of such communication, impugned in this writ petition is that the said order has been issued in violation of the order of engagement of the petitioner, dated 24.10.2009. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, his employment can be terminated either by serving a notice of one month or paying salary in lieu thereof. None of the aforementioned conditions were fulfilled before issuance of the impugned letter, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

Per contra, Mr. J Patowary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was no necessity for compliance of the aforesaid two conditions in view of the fact that the petitioner was relieved from his employment as the contract period of employment was over and no extension was made. According to Mr. Patowary, the said two conditions are required to be followed only when a person under the contract is terminated during the subsistence of contract. Such conditions will not be available, once the period of contract is not extended and / or the period of contract is over, submits Mr. Patowary.

¶27

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. The material available on record discloses that the petitioner was employed as Technical Assistant in the respondent institute i.e. The Energy and Resources Institute, hereinafter referred to as TERI by way of a communication dated 24.10.2009. The said communication contemplates that the employment as made can be terminated by either parties by serving a notice of one month or paying salary in lieu thereof. The said employment of the petitioner was for a period of six months from date of joining. Subsequent to this, the employment of the petitioner were extended by the respondent TERI. The last extension was for a period of two years w.e.f. May 11, 2012 and the

¶28

Page No.# 4/5

¶29

same was done vide communication dated 10.04.2012. The said communication dated 10.04.2012 also stipulates that all other terms and conditions of the employment would remain unchanged.

¶30

Thus, pursuant to that communication dated 10.04.2012, the period of employment of the petitioner expired on 11.05.2014. Thereafter, on 13.05.2014, the impugned communication was issued. The said communication contemplates that as the contract of the petitioner with TERI ended on 11.05.2014 and since there has been no extension beyond the contracted period, the petitioner stood relieved from the service of TERI at the end of the contract. The said communication also contemplates that the petitioner should forward a clearance certificate duly completed to facilitate settlement of his account.

¶31

In the aforesaid backdrop, the contention of the petitioner that before termination, a notice ought to have been given to him or in lieu of that a month salary would have been paid to him cannot be accepted for the reason that the employment of the petitioner was not terminated during the subsistence of his contract, rather his contract was not extended. Therefore, the entire case of the petitioner falls and he is not entitled for relief as prayed for.

¶32

Though a stand regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition was raised by the TERI on the ground that the TERI is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such a writ is not maintainable against it. Since, such contention has not forcefully been persuaded by the respondents, such issue is kept open and the TERI is at liberty to raise such issue, if so arises in any other occasion.

¶33

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her client is

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

at least entitled for his statutory dues like provident fund etc. and she prays that a direction be issued for release of such statutory dues. Mr. Patowary, learned counsel responding to such submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority is not averse in paying the statutory dues, if any due to the petitioner. Mr. Patowary further submits, such intention of the authority is very much clear from the impugned communication dated 13.05.2014 inasmuch as by the said communication the petitioner was asked to submit the clearance certificate duly completed for settlement of his account but the petitioner has not submitted the clearance certificate till date. In his usual fairness, Mr. Patowary submits that if the petitioner still can submit the clearance certificate as stipulated in the communication dated 13.05.2014, the respondent authority will definitely consider such claim of the petitioner.

¶36

In that view of the aforesaid submissions, it is directed that the petitioner shall submit the clearance certificate duly completed, before the respondent authorities and in the event such clearance certificate is submitted within six weeks from passing of this order, before the competent authority in TERI, the respondent authority shall consider the same and do the needful within a period of four weeks thereafter to release the amount, if any due to the petitioner. In the event the authority rejects such claim, the authority shall furnish a copy of such decision to the petitioner herein.

¶37

With the above findings, and observations, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no order as to cost.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Amarendra Deka v. the Energy and Resources Institute and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarendra Deka v. the Energy and Resources Institute and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rina Rani Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Durna Kanta Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Kenduguri Gaon Panchayat and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rafiqul Islam Khan and 23 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Nazrul Ali Vs Jolly Das Brahma and Anr.

Dipak Gogoi and 23 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.