Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, dismissed a petition filed by a contractual Mid-Level Health Provider challenging her termination under the National Health Mission. The petitioner faced findings of habitual unauthorised absence, attendance record tampering, and unprofessional conduct, established through three separate committee enquiries. The Court held that contractual employees do not enjoy civil service constitutional protections and are not entitled to a full departmental enquiry before termination. It further clarified that transport and infrastructure concerns cannot justify absence from duty. The respondents were directed to release any withheld salary for periods of actual service rendered.

The petitioner, engaged as a Mid-Level Health Provider (MLHP) under the National Health Mission pursuant to an order dated 16.04.2021, challenged the termination of her contractual services by order dated 12.01.2024. She was posted at HWC-SC Kagrore, Block Basholi, District Kathua. After joining, she lodged complaints regarding lack of infrastructure and non-cooperation of staff.

Also Read: Degrees Obtained From A University That Later Lost Recognition Remain Valid: Supreme Court

Between 2021 and 2023, several explanations were sought from her regarding absence from duty, non-attendance at meetings, non-submission of reports, and alleged tampering with the attendance register. Committees constituted by the respondents conducted enquiries and recorded statements of witnesses. Reports concluded that she had been habitually absent, had not uploaded required reports on the portal, had behaved inappropriately with staff and public, and had shown unsatisfactory performance.

The petitioner denied allegations, attributing absence to health and transport issues and alleging bias in enquiries. She contended that the termination was stigmatic and required a regular departmental enquiry. The respondents maintained that she was a contractual employee governed by service agreement clauses permitting termination for unsatisfactory performance, negligence, and misconduct, and that she had been afforded opportunity through multiple show cause notices.

The Court observed that “the petitioner has been served with repeated show cause notices by the respondents and preliminary enquiries into her conduct have been held, on as many as three occasions before taking impugned action against her.” It recorded that “the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses who have deposed before the enquiry committees,” but also noted that “the petitioner has been permitted to respond to the final show cause notice and to project her side of the story.”

On the nature of engagement, the Court stated that “the petitioner was not working as a regular employee against a civil post but she was engaged on contractual basis.” It further recorded that “the safeguards available to an employee appointed on a civil post as contained in Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 are not available to the petitioner.”

Referring to the service agreement, the Court observed that “as per Clause (4) of the service agreement, the employer has a right to rescind the contract before completion if the performance of the employee has been found to be unsatisfactory.” It also recorded that “as per Clause (16) of the said agreement, the engagement of the employee would stand terminated if he/she absents from duty for seven working days without taking permission from the competent authority,” and that “as per Clause (22) of the agreement, employer has a right to terminate the services of an employee if he/she has committed irregularities and impropriety of administrative and financial nature, negligence of care, unsafe practices, inefficiency and insincerity, professional misconduct or false reporting of information or fabrication of date in the maintained records or any other inappropriate action.”

On factual findings, the Court noted that committees concluded the petitioner “is in the habit of being absent from her duty unauthorizedly” and that her performance “has not been satisfactory.” It observed that from her reply, “it can safely be inferred that she has admitted the allegation regarding her unauthorized absence from the duty.”

Addressing the plea for departmental enquiry, the Court recorded that “a person appointed on contractual basis does not enjoy the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India” and that “a contractual employee is not entitled to the protection, which is available to an employee who is in service of Union or State on a civil post.”

The Court concluded that “termination of the petitioner from her services has been effected in accordance with the conditions of her engagement after following the principles of natural justice and after considering her reply to the show cause notice in the light of the enquiry reports.”

Also Read: Extra-Judicial Panchayat Confession Cannot Convict Co-Accused Without Independent Corroboration: J&K And Ladakh High Court

The Court directed that “the petition, therefore, lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.” It further ordered that “the respondents shall, however, release the unpaid/withheld salary, if any, to the petitioner for the period during which she has performed her duties.” It also stated that “the record be returned to the learned counsel of the respondents.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Antriksh Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG

Case Title: Himani Sharma v. U T of J&K & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: JKLHC-JMU:192
Case Number: WP(C) No. 2950/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar