SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the termination of a contractual employee engaged under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS), ruling that a contractual appointee has no protection under Article 311 of the Constitution and can be removed in terms of the employment agreement if the termination is not stigmatic in nature.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem delivered the judgment on June 6, 2026, dismissing Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 50/2024 filed by Manzoor Ahmad Bhat.
The appeal challenged an August 2, 2023 judgment by a Single Judge in SWP No. 1077/2007, which had dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to his termination.
The appellant was represented by advocate Danish Yousuf, while the Union of India and other respondents were represented by advocate Rehana Qayoom appearing on behalf of Deputy Solicitor General of India TM Shamsi.
According to the court record, Manzoor Ahmad Bhat, a resident of Khrew in Pulwama district, had been appointed as a Laboratory Assistant under the ECHS on October 4, 2004. His engagement, initially for 11 months, was extended twice through fresh contractual agreements.
The dispute arose after he was issued a termination notice on May 21, 2007, followed by a formal termination order on June 19, 2007.
The appellant argued that the termination order was stigmatic in nature and had been issued without conducting a proper enquiry or granting him a reasonable opportunity of hearing. He also questioned the competence of the officer who issued the termination notice.
The respondents, however, maintained that the petitioner was a purely contractual employee whose service conditions were governed by the terms of the agreement. They informed the court that the appellant had repeatedly been warned over his conduct and unsatisfactory performance through communications issued in April and May 2007.
The Division Bench noted that an inspection conducted on April 27, 2007 had revealed deficiencies in the functioning of the laboratory and that the employee had been cautioned several times regarding his professional conduct and performance.
Referring to Clause 11 of the employment agreement, the court observed that the employer had the right to terminate the contract by giving one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof.
The Bench quoted the Supreme Court judgment in Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union of India, observing that where the employer has a contractual right to terminate service, “such termination in the manner provided by the contract or the rules is, prima facie and per se, not a punishment.”
The court further held that the constitutional safeguards available to civil servants under Article 311 were not applicable in the present case because the appellant was not holding a civil post but was engaged on contractual basis.
Rejecting the reliance placed by the appellant on the Supreme Court judgment in Anoop Jaiswal vs Government of India, the Bench said the facts were distinguishable because the present case did not involve termination founded on specific allegations of misconduct.
The court observed: “The termination of the appellant is not founded on any specific charge of misconduct, but is based on overall unsatisfactory performance and lack of professional competence.”
It further held that “no stigma can be said to have been attached to the termination order, so as to attract the requirement of a departmental enquiry.”
Holding that the Single Judge had correctly appreciated both facts and law, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the termination order.
