High Court of H.P. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1954 of 2020.

Reserved on : 26.08.2020.

Date of decision: 02.09.2020.

Kanwar Singh Sharma …..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

…..Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

Yes

For the Petitioner :Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Ramesh

Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate

General with Mr. Vinod

Thakur, Mr. Desh Raj Thakur,

Additional Advocate

Generals, Ms. Seema

Sharma and Mr. Bhupinder

Thakur, Deputy Advocate

Generals, for respondents

No.1 and 2.

Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma,

Advocate, for respondent

No.3.

Mr. H.S.Rangra, Advocate,

for respondent No.4.

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.2

Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central

Government Counsel, for

respondent No.5.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge

Aggrieved by the disengagement orders dated

12.05.2020 (Annexure P-8) and dated 08.05.2020 (Annexure

P-10), the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the

following substantive reliefs:

“(i)That the disengagement orders Annexure P-8

dated 12-5-2020 and Annexure P-10 dated 8-5-2020 may

kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii)That the respondents may kindly be directed to

allow the petitioner to continue his services till the

Scheme is completed in 2022, and extend his contract

period like other Experts.

(iii)That act and conduct of respondents may kindly be

declared as arbitrary and discriminatory. The respondents

may kindly also be directed to release the deducted

salary of petitioner with interest.”

2. The petitioner retired as Senior Law Officer on

31.12.2017 from the Office of the Director, Urban Development-

cum-Mission Director (Nodal Officer), Pradhan Mantri Awas

Yojna, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Palika Bhawan Talland,

Shimla, after having served for 37 years in different

departments of the State of Himachal Pradesh.

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.3

3. Respondent No.3 i.e. National Institute of Electronics

and Information Technology (NIELIT), Hotel Cedarwood, Building,

Jakhoo Road Shimla, H.P. advertised various posts including the

post of Social Development Specialist on 25.02.2018. Interviews

were conducted by a Board constituted by respondent No.3 on

06.03.2018 in which the petitioner was selected and given

appointment vide order dated 08.03.2018 as Social

Development Specialist in the Office of the Municipal Council at

Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and joined on

08.03.2018.

4. Immediately thereafter, respondent No.2 i.e. Mission

Director, transferred the petitioner from Municipal Council,

Sundernagar and placed his services at the disposal of the

State Level Technical Cell, Directorate of Urban Development

under “Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna- Housing for all Project”, till

further orders.

5. In compliance to the orders, the petitioner joined at

Shimla on 12.03.2018 itself. Thereafter vide order dated

27.06.2018, the petitioner was directed to look after the work

of Law Officer in addition to the Social Development Expert.

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.4

6. On 13.03.2019, an agreement for extension of

contract of the petitioner for a period of one year was executed

which was valid upto 07.03.2020.

7. Some of the salient features of the agreement as

contained in Clause-1, 11, 12 and 15 are extracted below:

“1. The individual contractor shall perform the function

of Social Development Specialist at under Pradhan Mantri

Awas Yojana Scheme/Project initially up to 07.03.2020.

Unless extended, the contractual services shall

automatically cease on the completion of the said

period. The individual contractor will be paid

consultancy fee of Rs.45000/- (Fourty Five Thousands

only) per month.

11. The contract shall be terminated during the period

of currency on any one day on 15 days’ notice from

either side.

12.The contractual services are initially upto

07.03.2020 and are purely temporary against the

assigned project. In case the project is

abandoned/discontinued, due to any reasons before the

said period, the contractual services shall be terminated

at fifteen days’ notice. He/she will not be expected to

leave employment during the contractual period without

giving 15 days’ notice before leaving the job failing

which salary for shortfall in notice period shall be

recovered.

15.The decision of the Director, NIELIT, Shimla Centre

in all matters relating to this contract shall be final and

binding on the contractor.”

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.5

8. Even though, the project under which the petitioner

was working is required to be implemented with effect from

17.06.2015 upto 31.03.2022, yet, respondent No.3 vide letter

dated 12.05.2020 which was received by the petitioner on

01.06.2020 informed the petitioner that since his contract

period had expired on 08.05.2020, he was not required to

attend the office from the expiry date i.e. 08.05.2020 onwards.

9. It is vehemently argued by Shri Shrawan Dogra,

Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for

the petitioner that the action of the respondents is

discriminatory as all other Experts including some retired

Officers appointed under the same process at different intervals

are still working with the respondents and it is only the

petitioner, who has been singled out and thus the impugned

orders are not only discriminatory, but are actuated by illegal

malafides. In addition thereto, it is submitted that the action of

the respondents is otherwise violative of the letter issued by

the Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, on

20.03.2020 (Annexure P-14) whereby there is complete ban

imposed by the Government on termination of services of any

employee.

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.6

10. In the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2,

preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition

has been raised. It is averred that the approval of the

Government in filling up the post of Social Development

Expert-CLTC under PMAY-HFA was only for one year which had

expired on 07.03.2019 and no further approval of the

Government was sought by respondent No.2/department.

However, the contract of the petitioner was inadvertently

extended upto 31.03.2020 by the department along with other

Experts. So far as the other Experts under the Scheme are

concerned, they were recruited as per the guidelines of the

Scheme and the Mission Director i.e. respondent No.2 is

competent authority to extend their contract. However, the

case of the petitioner was different as he was engaged as Social

Development Expert-CLTC (on outsource basis) under the

Scheme as per the approval of the Government for one year.

During the review of PMAY-HFA (Urban) by respondent No.2, it

was observed that progress under PMAY-HFA (Urban) was not

satisfactory and targets were not being achieved. Moreover, the

petitioner, who was engaged as Social Development Expert-CLTC

(on outsource basis) under PMAY-HFA (Urban) Scheme was only

looking after the work of Law Officer and the work under the

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.7

Scheme was suffering. It was also observed that it was not

warranted to appoint any person to perform the work of Law

Officer and it was decided not to extend the contract period of

the petitioner. In addition, it is averred that even this Court

while deciding CWPIL No. 201 of 2017 titled ‘Court on its own

motion versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others’ vide

judgment dated 19.12.2017 has already settled the issue of

re-employment of retired government servants and clearly

directed that no employee shall be given extension or be

re-employed beyond the age of superannuation.

11. On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary

objection have simply been reiterated by referring to Rule 22.4

of Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-II,

Second Edition.

12. At this stage, we may note that second respondent

while filing reply to the application for interim relief has clearly

averred that the applicant/petitioner has been removed from

his post after due application of mind as his work, conduct and

performance was unsatisfactory.

13. In its reply, respondent No.3 has simply averred that

it was in the discretion of respondent No.2 to continue or not to

continue with the services of the petitioner and once it decided

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.8

not to continue with the services of the petitioner, therefore,

replying respondent had no option, but to comply with the said

instructions.

14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and have gone through the records of the case.

15. It is not in dispute that the Scheme in question

against which the petitioner was appointed was valid upto

31.03.2022. It is further not in dispute that out of 34

Consultants, it is only the petitioner whose services have not

been re-engaged on the ground that his contract or services

have come to an end, though the contract of the other 33

Consultants had also come to an end.

16. Records reveal that before the contract of the

petitioner could come to an end, a proposal had already been

mooted by the department for continuing the services of all the

34 Consultants including the petitioner for further period of one

year, as would be evident from Note-31 of the file which reads

as under:

“In view of above, the contract agreement of 34 Nos.

consultants (as per the Annex-I) whose contracts are

going to expire during on 31.03.2020 may be allowed to

continue for another year or till the project lasts. A letter

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.9

in this regard addressed to Director-In-Charge, NIELIT

Shimla has also been drafted and placed below.”

17. This proposal was not accepted as it is as

respondent No.2 was of the opinion that this could be decided

only after the performance reviewed, as is evident from the

Note dated 04.03.2020, which reads as under:

“Pl. discuss only after performance reviewed. Fix date

for performance. Target given achieved etc.”

18. The notings appearing in the file thereafter are as

under:

-44- While extending the contract of out-sourced or contract

manpower it is imperative that the performance of the

employed manpower has to be evaluated. The

evaluation remarks are to be given by the immediate

officers who are supervising the work of the immediate

subordinate officials. These all are employed under the

different projects and the project branch has to make an

assessment subjectively. Mere job profile document is

not sufficient to evaluate the performance rather the

factual work assigned to the officials is required to be

assessed. Hence may please put up accordingly.

Sd/- 17.4.

-45-P/O.

-46-N-44-45:The working of experts working under various

schemes are satisfactory. May consider pl.

Sd/-

21.4.2020

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.10

-47-Pl. put up with the Goals fixed and achieved.

Sd/-

22/4/

-48-Kindly see No.47 above-

In this context it is submitted that no such individual

goals were fixed by the Deptt. Pl.

Submitted pl.

Sd/-

27/4/

-49-We have given them target to be achieved which were

being received in the meetings for which PO is the nodal

officer.

Sd/-

28/4

-50-N-49:-The required information w.r.t. PMAY is placed at

flag–A pl. The annual target and achievement under

NVCS is placed at flag-B pl.

Sd/-

1.5.20

In reference of N-49 Pl.

Sd/- 2/5.

-51- Pl. examine and put up expertwise targets fixed and

achieved on the file and gap in targets.

Sd-

2/5

-52-Accordingly Expert-wise targets UCB-wise and district-

wise which were received is placed below for perusal

please.

Sd/-

4/5

-53-The details of targets fixed and achieved, Nov.2019 to

March, 2020, is placed on the file ‘A’. As per version of

PO earlier to it those were not targets fixed for the

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.11

experts.

Sd/-

4/5/2020

As discussed. Pl. put up

Sd/-

4/5/20

-54-

-55-

As per the details given on the sheet flagged ‘A’ except

Smt. Rita whose overall target was fixed 57 has

achieved less by 7 houses. But if assessed district-wise

the targets of following districts are less:

Name of Expert District Less Targets

1.Ms. P. Zinta Kullu 5

–do- Shimla 8

2.Sn. Anoop Mandi 3

3.Sh. Harinder Hamirpur 9

4.Sh. Vishal -- -

5.Smt. Rita Sirmaur 1

Solan 6

Sd/-

5.5.2020

-56-Since Mission time line is only upto March 2022. We

have a target of 9093 houses to be completed. Last

financial year 2018-19 about 951 houses constructed. In

the recently closed fY 2019-20 only 935 houses

completed. The seriousness of SLTC reflects from this

data only. They were given a target of 2000 houses in

the last FY 2019-20. Against with target achieved is 933

only. In this way it will require about 10 years for

completion of target. Progress does not seem

satisfactory. Ask them to show cause for such

dissatisfactorily progress.

-57-Meanwhile ask them to concentrate this year targets as

well right from now without wasting any further time.

Sd/-

5.5.20

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.12

-58-N.54 to 57:- The details of Experts Manpower engaged

under PMAY–HFA is placed below at flag ‘A’ for kind

perusal please.

In this context, it is submitted that Sh. Kanwar Singh

Sharma Social Development Spl (SDS) who is retired Sr.

Law Officer of this office have been engaged as Social

Development SPl (SDS) (on out-source basis) through

NIELIT, Shimla w.e.f. 8.3.2018.

-59-(May see Flag B to E), as per approval of the Govt. dated

2.02.18 for the period of one year. The period of

approval of the Govt. for one year has expired on

7.3.2019 and thereafter no further approval of the Govt.

have sought by the Department.

-60-Moreover, the contract in respect of above expert have

also been expired on 31.3.2020 alongwith other 10 Nos.

expert, please.

-61-In view of the above, the file is submitted for favour of

kind perusal and further directions in the matter, please.

Submitted please.

Sd/-08.05.2020

-62-

-63-

Supdt Gr.-II

Supdt Gr-I

Sd/-08/5/20.

As per N-59 the approval for one year of Govt. had come

to an end on 31.3.2019 but under letter No. 5536 dt.

8.3.2019 of this Directorate the period was further

extended for one year i.e. up to 31.3.2020. If approve,

we may write to the AD for ex-post-facto approval for

the last year and decision for further period as at

present in this Directorate no Law officer to look after

the legal matters going on in different courts will be

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.13

available till some arrangement is made.

Sd/- 8.5.2020

-64-It is very strange incident. Since the progress under

PMAY is not so satisfactorily, we have entered into the

2

nd

last year of the PMAY (U), which is going to be over

by March 2022. By this date, we have to complete all the

houses sanctioned by the Govt. of India i.e. 9093 no. At

present we have constructed only 1852 houses and this

year upto 31

st

March only 952 houses. At this place, we

will require 10 years to complete the target houses.

Therefore, to achieve this target we have fixed a target

of construction of 6000 houses this year 2020-21 so that

the mission target be achieved by March 2022.

-65-This can be done by aligning all our resources

sanctioned under PMAY (U) in the right direction. Also we

have to fill up the vacant position immediately. To

appoint under this scheme for other functions is not

warranted by the MOH&UA. Hence, the proposal of

Additional Director is in violation of the guidelines of the

MOH&UA and nobody can be engaged to perform other

functions under this Scheme.

-66-So it is not warranted to appoint any person to perform

the work of Law Officer under this scheme. Hence, we

may not recommend the extension further. If required,

we may send case separately to the Govt. of HP for

appointment of Law Officer on 2ndment basis and not

under this Scheme.

-67-Hence, we may direct the NIELIT not to extend the

period further after 8

th

May, 2020. Other experts who are

performing the work of PMAY(U) be extended till one

year from the date of expiry i.e. 31.3.2020 except

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.14

above, which will be till 8

th

May, 2020 as already salary

fixed till 30

th

April.

-68-Issue necessary directions to the NIELIT as well all

concerned. Also a new agreement be signed.

Sd/- 8/5/2020.

19. It would be noticed that upto N-57, there was no

discussion whatsoever regarding the petitioner nor his name

figured in the list of Experts, who had not been able to achieve

the targets. Yet, a note appears at N-58, where for the first

time, it is pointed out that the petitioner has been engaged

Social Development Specialist (SDS) through respondent No.3

with effect from 08.03.2018 and the approval of the

Government is for a period of one year which has expired on

07.03.2019 and thereafter no further approval of the

Government has been sought by the department. In the next

noting, it is pointed out that the contract in respect of the

petitioner has expired on 31.03.2020 along with ten other

Experts. It is then that the notings of respondent No.2-Director

appear at N-64 to 68. Admittedly, prior to this noting, there was

no notice much less show cause notice issued to the petitioner

regarding his work and conduct etc. being not satisfactory.

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.15

20. Records also reveal that it was the respondent-

department itself which right from the beginning was keen to

have the services of the petitioner, more particularly, as a Law

Officer and that is why immediately after his appointment on

08.03.2018 at Sundernagar, the petitioner was transferred to

the Office at Shimla and placed at the disposal of State Level

Technical Cell, Directorate of Urban Development under

“Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna- Housing for all Project” and was

made to look after the work of Law Officer in the Directorate.

This is clearly evident from the documents appended by the

respondents themselves with their reply.

21. Even prior to the retirement of the petitioner,

respondent No.2 vide letter dated 25.11.2017 (Annexure R-1)

had requested for extension of his services by one year. The

request was reiterated by another letter dated 23.12.2017

(Annexure R-II). Not only this, the petitioner had retired on

31.12.2017, respondent No.2 again sought extension of his

services vide letter dated 18.01.2018, the relevant portion

whereof reads as under:

“The post of Law Officer is of utmost-importance in this

Department and in the absence of Law Officer, the work

of this Department particularly court matters are

suffering badly as there is no other official ripe enough

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.16

to take over the job of Sr. Law Officer being technical in

nature requiring Law Degree and knowledge/experience

etc. Thus, this post of Law Officer cannot be kept vacant

in the public interest as well as in the interest of the

Department.

It is further submitted that one post of Social

Development Expert under City Level Technical Cell of

PMAY-HFA (a Flagship Programme of MoHUA, Gol) is lying

vacant in Municipal Council , Sundernagar. The

qualification and experience for the post is Post

Graduate/Graduate or Diploma in Social Science with

practical experience of working with community of

Urban areas, 3-5 years experience in undertaking social

and community development activities. Experience in

participatory methods/planning and community

mobilization. As Sh. Kanwar Singh Sharma has recently

retired from the post of Senior Law Officer of this

Directorate is having diploma in Social Science and have

a vast service experience, so the candidature of Sh.

Kanwar Singh Sharma, retired Senior Law Officer is

proposed for this post on outsource basis(copy of terms

of references ToR enclosed), who will also look after the

work of Law Officer of this Directorate and thus, the work

of Legal Cell of this Officer will not suffer to some extent.

In view of the above, it is requested to consider the

matter at Govt. level and accord approval of the Govt. for

engagement of Sh. Kanwar Singh Sharma, retired Sr.

Law Officer of this Directorate on outsource basis against

the post of Social Development Expert under SLTC PMAY-

HFA at Sundernagar in the Directorate of Urban

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.17

Development at fixed emoluments @ Rs.45,000/- p.m. in

the public interest, please.”

22. It is not in dispute that another Social Development

Specialist Ms. Poonam Sharma was appointed along with the

petitioner and her services have been continued while the

services of the petitioner have been dispensed with. Thus, there

is gross arbitrariness and discrimination in the action of

respondent No.2 and it is clearly a case of invidious

discrimination of the petitioner vis-a-vis similarly situate persons

that too without any rational basis.

23. The State has the duty to observe equality. An

ordinary individual can choose not to deal with any person, but

Government cannot choose to exclude persons by

discrimination. Whatever its activity, the Government is still the

Government and will be subject to restraints, inherent in its

position in a democratic society. A democratic Government

cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the

choice of persons with whom alone it will deal.

24. The Government is a Government of laws and not of

men. The petitioner was entitled to equal treatment with

others, who were appointed in the same manner as the

petitioner. Democratic form of Government demands equality

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.18

and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination. There are

limitations upon exercise of authority by the State and that is to

act fairly and rationally without any way being arbitrary and

thereby such a decision can be taken for some legitimate

purpose. The activities of the Government have a public

element and, therefore, there should be fairness and equality.

The State need not enter into any contract with anyone, but if it

does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without

unfair procedure.

25. This proposition would hold good in all cases of

dealing by the Government with the public, where the interest

sought to be protected is a privilege. It must, therefore, be

taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with

the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into

contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms

of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily as its sweet

will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it

pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or

norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant.

26. The power or discretion of the Government in the

matter of grant of largess including award of jobs, contracts,

quotas, licences etc., must be confined and structured by

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.19

rational, relevant and non- discriminatory standard or norm

and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in

any particular case or cases, the action of the Government

would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by

the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was

based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational,

unreasonable or discriminatory.

27. It is more than settled that where power is conferred

to achieve a purpose, it has been repeatedly reiterated that the

power must be exercised reasonably and in good faith to

effectuate the purpose. And in this context “in good faith”

means “for legitimate reasons”. Where power is exercised for

extraneous or irrelevant considerations or reasons, it is

unquestionably a colourable exercise of power or fraud on

power and the exercise of power is vitiated. If it is exercised for

an extraneous, irrelevant or non-germane consideration, the

acquiring authority can be charged with legal mala fides.

28. In State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh and others

[1980] 1 S.C.R. 1071 , acquisition of land for constructing a

grain market was challenged on the ground of legal mala fides.

Upholding the challenge, the Hon’ble Supreme Court speaking

through Krishna Iyer, J. explained the concept of legal malafides

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.20

in his hitherto inimitable language, diction and style and

observed as under:

“Pithily put, bad faith which invalidates the exercise of

power-sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on

power and oftentimes overlaps motives, passions and

satisfactions- is the attainment of ends beyond the

sanctioned purposes or power by simulation or

pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the

power is for the fulfilment of a legitimate object the

actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. The

action is bad where the true object is to reach an end

different from the one for which the power is entrusted,

goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad, but

irrelevant to the entrustment. When the custodian of

power is influenced in its exercise by considerations

outside those for promotion of which the power is vested,

the court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived

by illusion….”

29. In West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Dilip

Kumar Ray, AIR 2007 SC 976, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

dealt with the term “malice” by referring to various dictionaries

etc. as:

"Malice in the legal sense imports (I) the absence of all

elements of justification, excuse or recognized

mitigation, and (2) the presence of either (a) an actual

intent to cause the particular harm which is produced or

harm of the same general nature, or (b) the wanton and

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.21

wilful doing of an act with awareness of a plain and

strong likelihood that such harm may result.

‘MALICE’ consists in a conscious violation of the law to

the prejudice of another and certainly has different

meanings with respect to responsibility for civil wrongs

and responsibility for crime.”

30. Mala fides, where it is alleged, depends upon its own

facts and circumstances, in fact has to be proved. It is a

deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others. It is a

wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse.

(See : State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna & Ors., AIR 2001

SC 343; State of A.P. and others vs. Goverdhanlal Pitti,

AIR 2003 SC 1941; Probodh Sagar vs. Punjab SEB & Ors.,

AIR 2000 SC 1684; and Chairman and MD, BPL Ltd. vs.

S.P. Gururaja & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 4536 ).

31. In Goverdhanlal Pitti’s case (Supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court ruled thus:

“Legal malice” or “malice in law” means “something

done without lawful excuse”. In other words, “it is an act

done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or

probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill

feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the

rights of others”. (See: Words and Phrases Legally

Defined, 3

rd

Edn., London Butterworths, 1989)”

XXX XXX XXX

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.22

“Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be

a case of personal ill-will or spite on the part of the State.

If at all it is malice in legal sense, it can be described as

an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object.”

32. In Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant

Vimalnath Narichania & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3745 , the

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

“25.The State is under obligation to act fairly without ill

will or malice- in fact or law. “Legal malice” or “malice in

law” means something done without lawful excuse. It is

an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable

or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from

ill felling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to

the rights of others. Where malice is attributed to the

State, it can never be a case of personal ill will or spite

on the part of the State. It is an act which is taken with

an oblique or indirect object. It means exercise of

statutory power for “purposes foreign to those for which

it is in law intended”. It means conscious violation of the

law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination

on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of

others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts.

26. Passing an order for an unauthorized purpose

constitutes malice in law.”

33. Adverting to the facts, it would be noticed from the

notings (supra) that respondent No.2. has not exercised

reasonably and in good faith the power vested in him.

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.23

34. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passing

an order for an unauthorized purpose constitutes malice in law.

35. After analyzing the factual matrix, we have no

hesitation in concluding that the exercise of powers by

respondent No.2, more particularly, by introducing the name of

the petitioner in the noting sheets and thereafter seeking

justification for not continuing with the contract of the petitioner

is goaded by extraneous considerations and it is a colourable

exercise and is deceived by illusion.

36. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, we are further

supported by the fact that even though there was no complaint

regarding working of the petitioner either as a Social

Development Expert or as a Law Officer, yet, respondent No.2

was bent upon and rather determined to show the petitioner

the door.

37. Additionally, the action of the respondents is bad in

not renewing the contract of the petitioner in view of the

instructions issued by the Central Government vide letter dated

20.03.2020 (Annexure P-14) through the Ministry of Labour and

Employment, New Delhi, which read as under:

“In the backdrop of such challenging situation, all the

Employers of Public/Private Establishments may be

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.24

advised to extend their coordination by not terminating

their employees, particularly casual or contractual

workers from job or reduce their wages. If any worker

takes leave, he should be deemed to be on duty without

any consequential deduction in wages for this period.

Further, if the place of employment is to be made non-

operational due to COVID-19, the employees of such unit

will be deemed to be on duty.

The termination of employee from the job or reduction

in wages in this scenario would further deepen the

crises and will not only weaken the financial condition

of the employee but also hamper their morale to combat

their fight with this epidemic. In view of this, you are

requested to issue necessary Advisory to the

Employers/Owners of all the establishments in the State.”

38. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we find merit in

this writ petition and the same is accordingly allowed and the

disengagement orders dated 12.05.2020 (Annexure P-8) and

dated 08.05.2020 (Annexure P-10) are quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioner

forthwith as Social Development Specialist on contract basis on

the same terms and conditions on which he was working earlier

till the same is completed in 2022 and extend his contract

period as has been done in the case of his counter-parts.

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.25

However, since the petitioner has not worked for this period,

therefore, he is not entitled for the salary of this period.

39. Pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)

Judge

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)

Judge

2

nd

September, 2020.

(krt)

::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2022 12:34:21 :::CIS