SADANANDA DOLOI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under ]s 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 19.2.2001 issued by the Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., O.P. No. 5, terminating the services of the petitioner, vide Annexure 23.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present writ petition may be stated thus :

(3.) IN the backdrop of the rival contentions made above, at the outset it would be profitable to have a look at the terms and conditions of appointment contained in the letter dated 6.2.1997 (Annexure A/3). Clause (2) of the aforesaid letter, which provides the tenure of appointment, reads thus : 'Period: The tenure of appointment as Sr. General Manager (HRD) is for a period of THREE years on contract basis subject to renewal on the basis of your performance. This contract of employment is, however, terminable even during this three year term on three months' notice or on payment of three months salary in lieu thereof by either side. X X X' It is worthwhile to mention here that the initial offer of appointment dated 8.1.1997 (Annexure 5) was amended by letters dated 29.1.1997 and 3.2.1997 (Annexures B/3 series). In the aforesaid letter dated 29.1.1997 it was pointed out that the last date of submission of acceptance of the terms and conditions of offer of appointment was inadvertently mentioned as 25.2.1997 instead of 25.1.1997 and the petitioner was requested to communicate his acceptance of the offer by 5.2.1997. By letter dated 3.2.1997 the management informed the petitioner that the GRIDCO would prefer his joining without retaining lien with his employer, i.e., MAMC. The O.Ps. also made it abundantly clear to the petitioner that it would not be possible for them to protect his basic pay, (i.e., Rs. 5990/ at MAMC) and then fix the petitioner in the scale as desired by him. However, the last pay, i.e., basic + D.A. drawn before his joining might be considered for protection with a basic pay in the offered scale of pay after adjustment of D.A. in CDA pattern. The petitioner by his letter dated 5.2.1997 (Annexure C/3 series) informed the Director (HRD) that he had gone through the contents of the letter dated 3,2.1997 and the same were acceptable to him. By the letter dated 29.10.1997 (Annexure 10) the petitioner was informed that para (2) of the order of appointment dated 6.2.1997 was amended as follows :