Annual contract enhancement cannot be claimed without a contractual or statutory entitlement.

The petitioner was engaged under an agreement dated 9 October 2012 to clean toilets, provide gardening services, and maintain the garden at the respondent’s premises.

The agreement was initially for one year and was later extended until further orders.

The petitioner sought a 10% annual enhancement of wages, relying on a separate arrangement concerning another institution.

The respondents discontinued the petitioner’s engagement from 20 August 2023 after inviting fresh quotations.

The petitioner sought to quash the discontinuance and obtain enhanced payment.

The respondents opposed the petition, citing unsatisfactory performance, the absence of an enhancement clause, and the petitioner’s failure to participate in the fresh quotation process.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a 10% annual enhancement of the contractual amount despite the absence of such a provision in the agreement governing its engagement.

Whether the discontinuance of the petitioner’s engagement warranted interference in the absence of a subsisting contractual right to continuation.

The Court relied on the terms of the agreement and tender governing the petitioner’s engagement.

It applied the principle that a contractor’s entitlement to enhanced payment must be grounded in the applicable contractual or statutory provision, and that continuation of an engagement cannot be claimed without a subsisting contractual right.

The judgment cited no statute or precedent.

The agreement dated 9 October 2012 contained no provision for a 10% annual enhancement, and the petitioner could not rely on a separate tender relating to another institution to establish an entitlement under its own contract.

The petitioner also failed to identify any contractual or statutory basis for the claimed increase.

Since fresh quotations had been invited and no subsisting right to continuation was shown, the Court found no ground to interfere with the discontinuance.

It dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.