Dismissed¶31

Balvir Sharma v. Indian Red Cross Society Pb St. Chd through Its Secretary and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jul 2025CWP/10236/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana HC | CWP-10236-1998(O&M) | Balvir Sharma v. Indian Red Cross Society Punjab State, Chandigarh & anr. | Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J. | decided 08.07.2025 | termination of Clerk (Red Cross, Muktsar) appointed under deficit-running project/scheme | no vested right of project/scheme employees | termination permissible on financial constraint | plea of termination without notice / natural justice not separately reasoned | writ petition dismissed | Annexure P-1 (28.02.1998), Annexure P-2 (30.06.1998) | salary Rs.1500/- p.m.; pay scale Rs.3120-100-3230.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioner; the prayer to quash the termination order dated 30.06.1998 (Annexure P-2) was refused, and pending application(s), if any, were directed to stand disposed of. ¶31

Balvir Sharma Vs Indian Red Cross Society Pb St. Chd through Its Secretary and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the petitioner; the prayer to quash the termination order dated 30.06.1998 (Annexure P-2) was refused, and pending application(s), if any, were directed to stand disposed of.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the termination of the petitioner's services without prior notice, by order dated 30.06.1998 (Annexure P-2), violated the principle of natural justice so as to render the order liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Finding no infirmity in the impugned termination order, the Court rejected the petitioner's challenge; no separate reasoning was recorded specifically on the notice/natural-justice contention.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

It is well settled law that an employee who is employed under a project/scheme can have his/her services terminated taking into consideration the financial constraint.

¶30

Key takeaways

There is no vested right in the case of employees employed/appointed under a project/scheme.ratio¶30
It was not disputed by the petitioner's counsel that he was appointed under a project/scheme and that the project/scheme was running in losses.ratio¶30
The petitioner did not contend that juniors to the petitioner were retained in service.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CWP-10236-1998(O&M), decided 08.07.2025 (Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J., Oral): Balvir Sharma, engaged as Clerk by the President, District Red Cross Branch, Muktsar on 15.06.1997 at a consolidated salary of Rs.1500/- p.m. and made permanent on 28.02.1998 in the pay scale Rs.3120-100-3230, was terminated by order dated 30.06.1998 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that the project/scheme under which he was appointed ran in deficit and the respondent faced financial constraint. The petitioner urged that termination without prior notice violated natural justice; the respondent maintained that termination followed from the loss-making nature of the scheme. Held: it is well settled that an employee employed under a project/scheme has no vested right and his/her services can be terminated taking into consideration the financial constraint; it stood undisputed that the petitioner was appointed under a loss-running project/scheme, and the petitioner did not allege retention of juniors. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the writ petition; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No precedent or statutory provision was cited.

¶1

CWP-10236-1998(O&M)

¶2

101

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-10236-1998(O&M) Date of decision : 08.07.2025

Balvir Sharma

.....Petitioner

Versus

Indian Red Cross Society Punjab State, Chandigarh and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA

¶11

Present: Mr. B.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Drishtana Singh, Advocate (through video conferencing) for respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J. (Oral)

¶16

In the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.06.1998 (Annexure P-2) vide which, the services of the petitioner were terminated.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as a Clerk by the President, District Red Cross Branch, Muktsar on 15.06.1997 on a consolidated salary of Rs.1500/- per month. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk on permanent basis on the pay scale of Rs.3120-100-3230 vide letter dated 28.02.1998 (Annexure P-1). However, vide order dated 30.06.1998 (Annexure P-2), services of the petitioner were terminated.

¶18

A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the reason for

¶19

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.07.11 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

-1-

¶21

CWP-10236-1998(O&M)

¶22

termination of the petitioner was that as the petitioner was appointed under the project/scheme which was running in deficit, therefore, it was difficult for the respondent to run the Scheme due to financial constraint.

¶23

Thus, aggrieved against the abovesaid order dated 30.06.1998 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the same. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact no notice was given before terminating the services of the petitioner, therefore, order passed by the respondent on 30.06.1998 (Annexure P- 2) was in violation of principle of natural justice. As such, the impugned order dated 30.06.1998 (Annexure P-2) is liable to be set aside.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the services of the petitioner were not terminated on the basis of any misconduct. In fact, the petitioner was employed under a project/scheme. As there was a financial constraint, taking into consideration the requirement of the posts, some employees were terminated from service and some were retained in service. He further submits that once there was no dispute in regard to the fact that the project/scheme under which the petitioner was appointed was running in losses, then the respondent had no option but to terminate the services of the petitioner which is legal and valid.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the paper-book.

¶27

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.07.11 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

-2-

¶29

CWP-10236-1998(O&M)

¶30

It is well settled law that an employee who is employed under a project/scheme, his/her services can be terminated taking into consideration the financial constraint. There is no vested right in the case of employees employed/appointed under the project/scheme. It is also not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was appointed under project/scheme and the project/scheme under which the petitioner was appointed was running in losses. It is also not a case of petitioner that juniors to petitioner were retained in service.

¶31

Taking into consideration the facts of the case, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.06.1998 (Annexure P-2) and accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed.

¶32

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed

¶33

of.

¶34

08.07.2025 (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) d.gulati JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

¶35

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.07.11 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

-3-

Balvir Sharma v. Indian Red Cross Society Pb St. Chd through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balvir Sharma v. Indian Red Cross Society Pb St. Chd through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Karamdeep Kaur and Others

Phuman Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through Its Managing Director and Others

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

State of Punjab Vs Gurmail Singh

Jaspal Kaur Vs Baba Farid University of Health Sciences

Jagdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others