Shimla Dec 28
The HP High court has upheld the State Government’s decision with regard to termination of all extensions or re-employments by the previous BJP government. The Court can interfere with the change in policy only after being satisfied that the same is irrational or perverse, directed the HP High court. A double bench of Justice Tarlok Chauhan and Justice Varinder Singh of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, dismissed a petition filed against letter dated 12.12.2022, of the State Government, to terminate all extensions or re-employments accorded by the previous government, with immediate effect.
The petition was filed by a Tehsildar, who was re-engaged post retirement against a vacant post in the H.P. State Co-operative Bank, on contractual basis in April 2022.
The petitioner had joined the contractual job on 13.4.2022, where after in December 2022, a change of government took place in the State and the new set-up notified an order to review or cancel all decisions taken by the previous government in the last 6 months.
As a fall out, the services of the petitioner were also terminated and the aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an instant petition for reliefs. The petition prayed that the services could not have been terminated without following basic principles of natural justice and fair play and the action of the respondents is in violation of the provisions of Constitution of India, more particularly, Articles 14 and 16 thereof.
In the matter the double bench directed that “It is in the larger public interest that the services of the re-employed needs to be dispensed with as the retired employees per se do not have any right of re-employment. Even if the re-employment, is for a fixed period, even then it is settled law that an appointment for a fixed period can be curtailed for a good and valid reason and taking into consideration the case of this nature where large number of persons have been reemployed, there is no requirement to follow the principle of natural justice, more particularly, the rule audi altrem paltrem by giving hearing to such re-employed person, added the court.
“ While resolving the validity of the policy decision, like withdrawing the extension or re-employment, it is not proper for the Court to put the conflicting claim in a sensitive judicial scale and decide the issue by finding which way the balance tilt,” directed the Double bench. Adding, “ That is the exercise which the administrator and the legislature have to undertake, this is so because often the Court has no satisfactory and effective means to decide which alternative out of many competing one is best in the circumstance of a given case.”
The court further added that, “The decision taken by the respondents can neither be termed to be unreasonable or arbitrary. The fundamental premise upon which it proceeds is fair and reasonable and it also does not offend the constitutional limitations. This decision cannot be termed to be arbitrary or irrational,” noted the Double bench. Adding,” Wisdom of the legislative policy is ordinary not open to judicial review and can be interfered with primary on it being violative of the fundamental rights but that is not the position in the instant case,” they directed.
“In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending applications, if any,” concluded the HP High court in the order.
Empower Independent Journalism – Join Us Today!
Dear Reader,
We’re committed to unbiased, in-depth journalism that uncovers truth and gives voice to the unheard. To sustain our mission, we need your help. Your contribution, no matter the size, fuels our research, reporting, and impact.
Stand with us in preserving independent journalism’s integrity and transparency. Support free press, diverse perspectives, and informed democracy.
Click [here] to join and be part of this vital endeavour.
Thank you for valuing independent journalism.
Warmly,
Vishal Sarin, Editor
