Mrs. Rashmi Negi v. State of Uttarakhand

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

HON'BLE THE ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE VI VEK BHARTI SHARMA

W RI T PETI TI ON ( S/ B) NO. 2 3 1 OF 2 0 1 6

4 TH DECEMBER, 2 0 2 4

Mrs. Rashmi Negi

…… Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another …… Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Anil K. Bisht, learned counsel

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State / respondent No. 1

: Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for respondent No. 2

Th e Cou r t m ade t h e follow in g:

JUDGMENT: ( per Hon 'ble Th e Act in g Ch ief Ju st ice Mr . Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i)

Petitioner was appointed as Advisor Tourism in Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'UPNL') vide order dated

06.03.2013. The said appointment was on contract and it

was provided in the order that petitioner's contract can be terminated with one month's notice, or one month's pay in lieu of notice. Petitioner's services were thereafter terminated vide letter dated 16.06.2016. Thus, feeling aggrieved by termination of her services, petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the termination letter dated 16.06.2016.

2) Learned counsel for UPNL submits that termination of service of petitioner is as per terms and conditions of her appointment and one month's pay in lieu of notice was offered to the petitioner. It is further contended that since petitioner does not have lien on the post of Advisor Tourism, and her appointment was purely on contract basis, therefore, the termination order dated

16.06.2016 cannot be faulted. He further submits that the termination order is not stigmatic, therefore, petitioner cannot have any grievance that she was not given notice, or opportunity of hearing, and her services were terminated strictly as per the terms and conditions of her appointment.

3)

We find substance in the said submission made by learned counsel for the UPNL.

4)

Since petitioner was appointed on contract basis on certain terms and conditions and her termination is referable to the terms and conditions as set out in the appointment order, thus we do not find any scope for interference in the writ petition.

5)

The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed as such. No orders as to cost.

_________________________

MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI , A.C.J.

_ _ _ _ _

VI VEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.

Dt: 4TH DECEMBER, 2024 Negi

HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20 d13aaf116e73351fdaf68783263869 08a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A809 90FC51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F 88DDF7C18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2024.12.05 18:47:22 +05'30'