HC dismisses plea challenging govt order terminating extensions, re-employments

Court can interfere with the change in policy only after being satisfied that the same is irrational or perverse, HC observed while dismissing a plea challenging the state government order to terminate all extensions

The court can interfere with the change in policy only after being satisfied that the same is irrational or perverse, the Himachal Pradesh High Court observed on Wednesday while dismissing a plea challenging the state government order to terminate all the extensions and re-employment accorded by the previous government.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed on Wednesday while dismissing a plea challenging the state government order to terminate all the extensions and re-employment accorded by the previous government.

Passing orders on a petition filed by one Om Prakash Sharma, the division bench of justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and justice Varinder Singh said: “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”.

The petitioner contended that he retired from the post of tehsildar on March 31, 2021. As per the policy formulated by the then state government for re-engaging retired employees for a further period of one year on a contract basis, so that the experience of such employees could be utilised meaningfully, he was assigned the post of tehsildar (bank recovery) with HP on April 6, 2022, for one year after the approval of board of directors.

However, after the change of the guard in the state, the new government ordered the termination of extensions or re-employments accorded by the previous government except in medical colleges vide a letter dated December 12.

As a fallout and direct outcome of this letter, the services of the petitioner were also terminated. Aggrieved by the action of the state government, the petitioner filed the instant petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the aforesaid order of the state government.

The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the services of the petitioner 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 the Constitution, more particularly, Articles 14 and 16 thereof.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner at a length and going through the record of the case, the court found that nothing prevents the respondents to review their policy. The court observed that it was more than settled that policy can be reviewed by the competent authority from time to time. The court can interfere with the change in policy only after being satisfied that the same is irrational or perverse. The court noticed that the petitioner was not re-employed after giving wide publicity that too by inviting the best talents. The court found justifiable reason to withdraw the earlier decision to grant re-employment.