APHC010107122012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 1111/2012 Between: Y. Venkateswara Rao, Tiruvuru, Krishna Dist. ...PETITIONER AND The Offr On Spl Duty A P Tourism Hyd 2 Otrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SATEESH KUMAR EERLA SC FOR AP TOURISAM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2. A K NARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 08.03.2007, whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are issued without following the due procedure laid 2 down by law. It is also submitted that the petitioner was working as a supervisor and that the respondents have without issuing any notice terminated the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal dated 07.05.2007 before respondent No.3 which remains undisposed till date. It is submitted that the respondents ought to have issued a notice before terminating the petitioner from service. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was engaged on a contract basis initially for a period of 3 years and subsequently, the contract period was extended. As per the terms of the engagement, either party could terminate the appointment at any time duly issuing one month notice or wages in due thereof to the other party. In the present case, the respondents invoked clause 4 of the order of appointment and issued one month salary in view of one month notice and terminated the service of the petitioner. 5. It is also submitted that the petitioner submitted a letter dated 24.04.2007 requesting the corporation to release a security deposit of Rs.20,000/-. The security deposit was also released vide a bank cheque dated 13.07.2007, though the petitioner was terminated in the year 2007. The present writ petition is filed after a lapse of more than 5 years. 6. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was aware of the term of engagement and he was also aware of the terms under which the contract could be terminated 3 by either side. With these terms governing the engagement of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot treat the contract as an assurance for the continuance of his engagement with the respondent corporation. 7. Considering the submissions and after perusing the record, the engagement of the petitioner is purely on a contractual basis and the respondents have invoked clause 4 of the orders of appointment and paid one month salary as is required in compliance of clause 4 of the orders of appointment. The petitioner having accepted the one month salary and also having requested the respondents to release the security deposit of Rs.20,000/-, the belated filing of the writ petition challenging the order of termination cannot sustain the scrutiny of law and logic. 8. With these observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 09.01.2025 PNS