The High Court held that a terminable contract is not specifically enforceable per Section 14(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Consequently, reinstatement was denied.
Direction to pay three months salary in lieu of notice and salary for the period actually worked.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1 -
CWP No.4607 of 1995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.4607 of 1995 Date of decision : 23.11.2010
Mrs.Rupinder Kaur
.........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
........Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present : Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents
Permod Kohli , J (Oral) :-
Respondent No.2 vide its Advertisement No.12/91
(Annexure P-3) invited applications for one post of Personal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1600-2600 plus allowances on contract basis for a period of 3 years with the qualifications laid down in the aforesaid advertisement notice. The petitioner applied for the said post. During the course of interview, it was found that the petitioner is not suitable for the advertised post, however, she was offered the post of Senior Scale Stenographer in the pay scale of 1400-2600 as per the decision taken by the
Committee in its meeting held on 22.1.1992. Offer having been accepted, petitioner was appointed as Senior Scale Stenographer
-2 -
CWP No.4607 of 1995
vide memo dated 27.1.1992 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner joined on 28.1.1992.
The service of the petitioner was, however, dispensed with vide order dated 10.3.1995 with immediate effect (Annexure R-2). It is alleged by the petitioner that this order was communicated to the petitioner on 3.4.1995. Though this order has not been specifically challenged in the writ petition nor a copy thereof has been filed with the writ petition, however, the order has been placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R-2.
The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the action of the respondents in terminating her services with a further direction in the nature of mandamus to regularise her services.
Notice of motion was issued in this petition on 28.3.1985. This Court ordered the maintenance of status quo as existed on that day. It is now admitted case of the parties that the petitioner is out of job since 30.3.1995, meaning thereby that when the status quo order was passed, the petitioner was already out of job. The petition, later on, came to be admitted and has come up for hearing today.
The petitioner relies on the policies of the State Government issued from time to time whereunder persons engaged temporarily, even on contract bases, were regularised. In so far the question of regularisation is concerned, the issue has
-3 -
CWP No.4607 of 1995
been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 'Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1'. Thus, no regularisation is permissive in view of the mandate of the aforesaid judgment. The prayer for regularisation, thus, is rejected.
It is contended by Mr. Arora that the petitioner's termination was in breach of the appointment letter. With a view to support his contention, he has relied upon Conditions No.1, 6 and 10 of the appointment letter. Condition No.1 deals with appointment for a period of 3 years and extendable thereafter. Condition No.6 deals with termination on expiry of period of contract and otherwise on 3 months notice. The petitioner joined the services on 28.1.1992 and the contract was to expire after a period of 3 years i.e. on 28.1.1995. Admittedly, the petitioner continued beyond the expiry of period i.e. upto passing of the impugned order Annexure R-2. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to 3 months notice or salary in lieu thereof. The contention of Mr. Arora that since the termination is in contravention to the aforesaid condition, petitioner is entitled to be reinstated. It is settled principle of law that a terminable contract is not enforceable in law even under the provision of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Reference can be made to Section 14 (c) of the Act which reads as under;
“Sec.14(1) The following contracts cannot be
-4 -
CWP No.4607 of 1995
specifically enforced, namely : (c) a contract which is in its nature determinable.”
Even if there is a breach, the aggrieved person can only ask for compensation before the Civil Court. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for reinstatement. However, the petitioner is entitled to salary in lieu of 3 months notice, in terms of the aforesaid condition of the appointment letter and salary for the period, the petitioner has actually performed the duties. Mr. Arora submits that petitioner has received salary upto February 1995. Thus, salary for 30 days i.e. from 1.3.1995 to 30.3.1995 is also payable if not already paid.
In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to pay 3 months salary in lieu of the notice and salary for the period, the petitioner has actually worked, if not already paid, within a period of 3
months.
(PERMOD KOHLI ) 23rd Nov., 2010 JUDGE akm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order of termination of services on breach of a contract for a terminable period is enforceable in law.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement or only compensation (salary in lieu of notice and salary for past work).
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs. Rupinder Kaur
State of Haryana
Permod Kohli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
