A contract cannot be short-closed without the full 30-day notice required by its terms.

The petitioner held a housekeeping contract with Bhilai Steel Plant.

Following a Vigilance Report based on a police complaint, the respondents issued a notice dated 3 September 2026 proposing to short-close the contract with effect from 1 October 2026.

The petitioner contended that Clauses 17.5.1 and 17.5.2 of the General Conditions of Contract required 30 days’ notice.

The respondents accepted that 30 days’ notice was required but submitted that the notice given was tentative and that any action would be taken only after 30 days.

The petitioner amended the writ petition to include the relevant contract provisions, and the Court allowed the amendment.

1. Whether the respondents could short-close the contract on the basis of the notice dated 3 September 2026, when the contract required 30 days’ notice.

2. Whether the impugned notice should be set aside and a fresh notice issued in accordance with the contractual terms.

Clause 17.5.1 permits termination for non-performance, detrimental activity, or failure to discharge contractual obligations to the employer’s satisfaction, upon 30 days’ written notice.

Clause 17.5.2 permits termination without assigning reasons, but requires reasonable notice of not less than 30 days.

Reading the two clauses, the Court concluded that the respondents were required to give the petitioner 30 days’ notice before taking a decision to short-close the contract.

Although the respondents described the notice as tentative and stated that action would follow only after completion of 30 days, the Court directed that a fresh notice be issued strictly in accordance with Clauses 17.5.1 and 17.5.2.

Any fresh decision was also required to be made in accordance with the contract and applicable law, without being influenced by the impugned letter.

The writ petition and the amendment application were allowed to that extent.