'Autocratic Attitude': Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes ₹75K Cost On PGIMS Rohtak For Arbitrarily Terminating Employee's Contract
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed litigation cost of Rs.75,000 on Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS, Rohtak) for terminating the contract of its employee arbitrarily despite her good performance and service of ten years.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, "the argument advanced by learned counsel for the University that the petitioner has no right to seek extension of contract which could only be extended as per University's wish and for so long as it desired, is cantankerous and shows high-handedness and autocratic attitude which is deprecated."
The University being a statutory body, its officers are bound to act in a fair and reasonable manner in accordance with law, and cannot be allowed to work arbitrarily and indiscriminately to terminate a contract of service after the employee has been allowed to work on the post for about ten years, whose work and conduct is also good and services are required, the judge added.
The Court opined that the reliance on the terms of appointment stipulating that the contract, unless extended, shall be terminated on its expiry, is also misplaced. It is unconscionable for the University to invoke the clause at will, ignoring the long service rendered by the petitioner, as also other facts and circumstances of the case; hence impermissible
The Court was hearing a plea for quashing order whereby a Junior Physiotherapist, namely Ritu has been refused extension and her contract was terminated. Ritu sought directions to her employees PGIMR Rohtak (University), to permit her to continue working on the post keeping in view the existing workload.
According to the plea, Ritu was appointed on contract basis for a period of six months or till the regular incumbent joins, whichever was earlier on a consolidated salary of Rs.12,500 per month in 2012. The University, however, kept on extending her contract of appointment from time to time and she continued in service for over a decade till passing of the impugned order.
She made a representation seeking minimum of regular pay scale meant for the post on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. A committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor to look into the matter, which opined her pay should be fixed in the minimum of pay of Rs. 35, 400 with effect to implementation of 7th pay commission. However the representation was not acted upon.
Thereafter, when Ritu's contract was to expire in 2022, her request to extension was declined by the HOD noting that her service is good but it is not in her or university's interest to extend the contract.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, "the petitioner was appointed as Junior Physiotherapist on contract basis for a period of six months or till the regular incumbent joined the post." Her contract was extended time to time and University also attempted to fill the post by regular selection but it eventually failed, it noted further.
The Court observed that, while refusing to extend her contract, the Vice Chancellor in his comments, clearly stated that regular appointments could not be made due to the government's directive, and the HOD was asked to clarify whether services of Junior Physiotherapist were required for smooth functioning of the Department. In response, he did not state that her services were not required; instead, only commented that extension for indefinite period was not desirable and the post be filled on regular basis.
"Apparently, there is no opinion by the Head of Department that the petitioner's service in the Department is not required, nor is there any dispute regarding the fact that her work and conduct during service has been good, and her services are required for patient care. Also, the University administration wants to fill the post by making regular appointment which could not be done due to directives of the government. The Head of Department also wants the post to be filled on regular basis. This underscores the need of an incumbent to man the sanctioned post of Physiotherapist. The petitioner has been working against this post satisfactorily since February 2012, as her tenure has been extended from time to time allowing her to continue till a regularly selected person joins," the judge added.
Justice Dahiya highlighted that, there was no justification in passing the impugned order refusing extension of service contract, nor has any been provided. "The inescapable conclusion is, the impugned order terminating the contract is an arbitrary exercise of power for extraneous reasons. It could not have been terminated, and the petitioner has a right to continue in service till joining of a regular incumbent."
Allowing the plea, the Court said, "the petitioner's contract of service has been arbitrarily terminated for extraneous reasons forcing her into this litigation, she is held entitled to costs of litigation which are quantified as Rs.75,000 (Rupees seventy five thousand), to be paid by the third and fourth respondent within two weeks..."
Consequently, the plea was disposed of.
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate for respondent no.3 to 5.
Ritu v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 170