Ravi Kaushik vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The Court held that the dispensation of the petitioner's services was not justified, primarily because respondent no. 4 had requested his extension until 31.08.2021, and his work and conduct were admitted to be satisfactory. While acknowledging that a contractual employee generally cannot claim continuation beyond their contract, the Court found that the lack of a clear decision-making process at the State level had led to the petitioner's services not being extended despite a clear requirement by respondent no. 4. The Court directed HARSAC to grant the necessary sanction for the petitioner's extension until 31.08.2021. It was clarified that thereafter, respondent no. 4 would need to make its own independent arrangements for recruiting project fellows. The indulgence was granted due to the specific requests made by respondent no. 4. The principle of 'no work no pay' was applied for any intervening period the petitioner did not work. The issue of GST levy on overhead charges was noted but not decided.

Facts

The petitioner, Ravi Kaushik, challenged a relieving letter dated 30.09.2020 issued by respondent no. 4 (ITI, Jind), based on a letter from respondent no. 2 (HARSAC). The petitioner argued that respondent no. 4 had requested an extension of his services as a Project Fellow from 01.09.2020 to 31.08.2021. Respondent no. 4 stated the petitioner's work was satisfactory and funds were available, but HARSAC was the competent authority for extension, not ITI, Jind. HARSAC contended that the petitioner was a contractual employee appointed for one year for the 2018-19 session, with extensions until 31.08.2020, and that ITI, Jind should independently arrange for salary payments for contractual staff for fresh admissions, similar to other ITIs. The judgment notes that ITI, Jind makes salary payments which are then disbursed back to the employee, with overhead charges and GST levied.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dispensation of the petitioner's services as a Project Fellow by respondent no. 4 is justified, considering respondent no. 4's request for extension and the petitioner's satisfactory work and conduct. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that respondent no. 4's request for extension of his services from 01.09.2020 to 31.08.2021, followed up by a subsequent letter, indicated a clear requirement for his continued employment, making his termination unjustified. He relied on the letters requesting extension (Annexures P-3 and P-5). Respondents' contention: Respondent no. 4 admitted satisfactory work and availability of funds but stated it lacked the competence to extend the agreement, as the petitioner was appointed by HARSAC. Respondent no. 2 (HARSAC) argued that the petitioner was a contractual employee with no right to claim continuation beyond his contractual period, which had ended. HARSAC stated that ITI, Jind should independently arrange for salary payments for contractual staff for fresh admissions, as it had no further involvement in extending the tenure.