1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 4593  of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 10907 of 2017)

Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation              .... Appellant(s)

      Versus

Paramjeet Singh                  ....Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 Leave granted.

2 The respondent was appointed as a conductor on a contractual basis

on 21 January 2006 by the appellant.  The contractual appointment was for

a period of one year or until the shortage of drivers was met, whichever

was earlier.  The agreement (described as the contract letter) which was

entered  into  between  the  appellant  and  the  respondent   stipulated  as

follows:

“11. While working as a conductor if on inspection of vehicle en-route if any passenger is found without a ticket then in such a situation the second party would be removed from the temporary employment and to fulfill the loss, he would also be liable to pay the amount as determined by the Head Quarter.  Apart from this the first party would be at liberty to proceed against the second party under the prevention of without ticket travel act.”

2

3 Clause 16 of the agreement stipulated that:

“16. The  first  party  will  have  the  right  to  terminate  the temporary appointment of the first party at any time without any notice.”

4 The services of  the respondent were dispensed with on 21 March

2007.  

5 Challenging  the  order  of  termination,  the  respondent  filed  a  writ

petition, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan

High  Court  on  6  April  2016.   The  writ  appeal  was  dismissed  on  19

September 2016 by a Division Bench of the High Court.

6 The respondent has been served, but has not entered appearance.

7 The sole ground on which the writ petition was allowed was that there

was a breach of the principle of natural justice.

8 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that

the High Court was in error, having regard to the fact that the nature of the

appointment was purely contractual for a period of one year or until the

shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier.  Moreover, the contract

stipulates  that  the  services  of  the  respondent  could  be  dispensed with

without any notice.

9 We  find  merit  in  the  submission.   The  terms  of  the  appointment

indicate that the respondent was on a purely contractual appointment and

that the services could be dispensed with without notice at any stage.

3

10 The learned Single Judge of the High Court relied upon a decision of

this Court in Hari Ram Maurya v Union of India and others1.  That case

is,  however,  distinguishable  since  it  was  found  by  this  Court  that  the

removal was on the ground that the employee, though he was engaged on

a temporary basis, was guilty of a charge of bribery.   

11 Having regard to the terms of the contractual engagement, we are of

the view that the action of the appellant cannot be faulted.  We accordingly

allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the

High Court.  In consequence, the writ petition filed by the respondent shall

stand dismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.     

…………...…...….......………………........J.                                                                     [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.                              [Hemant Gupta]

 New Delhi;  May 03, 2019

1 (2006) 9 SCC 167