Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) Aggrieved of the letter/order dated 30th April, 2013, terminating the contract of employment with further advise to relieve the petitioner on 29th July, 2013; the petitioner has instituted the present writ proceedings, praying for the following relief(s): "(i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing and setting aside the letter/order dated 30.4.2013 and restore the status quo ante with all consequential benefits with interest @ 18% per annum. (ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing and setting aside the Clause (a) of Notice Period falling under Annexure -III of Letter of Appointment which empowers Respondent to terminate the service of the petitioner even after his confirmation, by giving three months notice. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of petitioner. (iv) Award cost of petition."
(2.) Shorn off unnecessary details, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioner was appointed in the Management Grade J -I, as a Team Member at it's Jaipur Office vide letter dated 11st August, 2008, by the respondent No. 2. On promotion to Grade J -3 as 'Territory Sales Manager', his Annual compensation was enhanced from Rs. 2,00,000/ - (Rupees Two lacs) to Rs. 2,25,000/ - (Rupees Two lacs Twenty Five Thousand), vide order dated 5th January, 2009. After review of the performance during probation, the petitioner was accorded confirmation vide communication dated 3rd September, 2009, in the services of the Organization w.e.f. 3rd March, 2009. Annual compensation was further enhanced, in view of the performance of the petitioner, for the financial year 2009 -2010 and 2011 -2012. However, the employment of the petitioner was suddenly put to an end vide order dated 30th April, 2013, w.e.f. 29th July, 2013; invoking Clause (a) under Annexure -III, which provided for a Notice Period.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Samdariya, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, while assailing the impugned provision i.e. Clause (a) of Notice Period under Annexure -III of the Letter of Appointment, asserted that the condition as contemplated under Clause (a) of the offer of appointment, empowering the respondent -employer to terminate the service of a confirmed employee by serving three months notice is non -est, void and inoperative in the eye of law in view of the several pronouncements by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land.;