Contractual Employee Has Not "Legitimate Expectation" To Continue Service Beyond Contractual Tenure: Tripura High Court

"In so far as the continuity of service beyond 30.06.2020 is concern, it is not legitimate expectation or the promise made by the respondents (employer) for continuing his service beyond 30.06.2020. In so far as the violation of principle of audi alteram is concern, the question of issuing any notice before putting an end to the tenure of petitioner's service is not indicated in the service condition in the year 2002 when the petitioner got into service to the said post for the first time."

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner had urged to quash and cancel the memorandum dated 30.06.2020 passed by the District Disability Rehabilitation Officer, District Disability Rehabilitation Centre (West) informing the petitioner not to attend his services any further.

Petitioner submitted before the court that the observation made by the respondents stating that the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory is adverse remark which creates a stigma. Moreover, counsel for the petitioner submitted that before making such decision, an opportunity ought to have been given by the respondents by following principle of natural justice.

The counsel appearing for the respondents submitted before the court that since it is contractual obligation, the petitioner has no right to continue beyond the period beyond which he has been employed.

Court noted that in so far as the violation of principle of audi alteram is concern, the question of issuing any notice before putting an end to the tenure of petitioner's service is not indicated in the service condition in the year 2002 when the petitioner got into service to the said post for the first time.

"The present memorandum does not speak of termination of the petitioner but only discontinuing the petitioner from service since the contractual obligation came to an end. This court, at this juncture, cannot give any direction to the respondents to enforce the contract to the petitioner despite his tenure is complete."

With regard to reliance placed by the petitioner on Ditul Debbarma vs State of Tripura & Ors., the court held that the facts of the judgment and the facts of the present case are distinct and the precdent cannot be applied herein.

In view of the above, the court found that the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

Case Title : Nandan Datta v State of Tripura and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 17 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment