Contractual Employment Terminable on Notice/Payment; Not Analogous to Ad-hoc Service.

The petitioner, Rakesh Ranjan, was appointed as a Legal Expert on a contractual basis under the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, on March 9, 2020, for an initial period of one year, extendable from time to time.

The appointment was made following an advertisement and selection process under a reserved category.

On May 8, 2025, the Under Secretary (Management Cell), Road Construction Department, issued an order terminating the petitioner's services with immediate effect, rescinding his contractual extension without prior notice or opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner submitted representations against the termination on May 9, 2025, and June 4, 2025, which remained undecided.

The terms of the contractual agreement, specifically Clause 9 as read by the petitioner's counsel, provided for termination by either side with one month's notice or payment of one month's contractual remuneration.

Conversely, the appointment letter (Annexure-P/4) stated that the contractual engagement could be terminated at any time without prior notice.

This appointment letter (Annexure-P/4), which the court identified as "most relevant," specified that the employment was purely temporary and contractual and could be terminated at any time.

However, the subsequent "agreement" executed at the time of joining stated that termination by either side required one month's prior notice or payment of one month's contractual remuneration.

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner's contractual service, without prior notice or opportunity of hearing, was legally valid given the terms of his appointment.

2. Whether the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, concerning the replacement of ad hoc employees, are applicable to a purely contractual engagement.

The court primarily considered the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment letter (Annexure-P/4) and the subsequent agreement between the parties.

Specifically, Clause 9 of the agreement, as referenced in the petitioner's argument and recognized by the court, allowed for termination by either side upon giving one month's notice or payment of one month's contractual remuneration.

The court differentiated this contractual employment from ad hoc appointments, implicitly relying on the principle that purely contractual engagements are governed by their specific terms.

The court also acknowledged the binding nature of contractual stipulations regarding termination clauses.

The court recognized that the petitioner's appointment as Legal Expert was purely contractual and temporary.

It noted that while the appointment letter (Annexure-P/4) suggested termination could occur at any time without notice, the "agreement" executed at the time of joining contained a specific stipulation for termination with one month's notice or payment in lieu thereof.

The court found that because the terms of the agreement were binding, the lack of prior notice before termination constituted a breach of this specific contractual stipulation.

Therefore, while the termination itself was not interfered with due to the contractual nature of the employment, the procedural aspect of notice or severance pay was deemed necessary.

The court distinguished the present case from precedents involving the replacement of ad hoc employees (Manish Gupta and Pawan Kumar) because the petitioner was engaged on a purely contractual basis, not as a regular or ad hoc employee.

However, in light of the contractual stipulation requiring one month's notice or remuneration in lieu thereof for termination, the State was directed to pay the petitioner one month's contractual remuneration within 30 days of receiving the order.

The judgments concerning ad hoc employees were held inapplicable to the present facts.