Expired contractual engagement confers no right to reinstatement; renewal requires consideration of the employee’s explanation.

The petitioner was engaged contractually as a District Sports Trainer (Handball) in 2013, with his engagement renewed from time to time.

His last renewal was from 15 July 2022 to 14 July 2023, and he received honorarium through July 2023.

The State asserted that he had been absent from duty, had received show-cause notices, and was not recommended for renewal; it relied on the attendance register and the absence of a further renewal.

The petitioner denied receiving notices, relied on his response to a notice dated 16 March 2022, and asserted that his appointment had subsequently been renewed.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for resumption of his contractual services or payment of honorarium after his last renewal expired and no further renewal was made.

Whether the respondents were required to consider the petitioner’s explanation to the show-cause notice before deciding whether to renew his contractual appointment.

The judgment identifies no specific statute or binding precedent as the basis for its decision.

It proceeds on the contractual terms and record showing that the petitioner’s last appointment renewal was for a fixed period ending on 14 July 2023, and that no further renewal followed.

The Court also applied the principle of fair consideration: where the petitioner had submitted an explanation to the show-cause notice, the respondents were required to examine it and pass an appropriate order on renewal or non-renewal.

The Court found that the petitioner’s last renewal had expired and that, according to the respondents, his absence led the committee not to recommend a further renewal; therefore, the absence of a separate discontinuation order did not establish an entitlement to continue in service or receive honorarium.

It also noted that the petitioner had not disclosed in his petition that he had received and replied to the show-cause notice, and described his initial case as not bona fide.

Nevertheless, because he had submitted an explanation dated 21 March 2022, fairness required the respondents to consider that explanation and decide the renewal question by an appropriate order.

It directed the respondents to examine his explanation and pass an appropriate order on renewal or non-renewal within three months from communication of the order.

The petitioner was permitted to submit a further explanation with supporting documents within 15 days from the date of the judgment.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.