JABALPUR, India, May 1 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on March 31:

1. 1. Issue notice.

2. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent. With the consent of the parties, arguments heard for the purpose of final disposal of the appeals.

3. In these appeals appellant impugns identical order dated 25.02.2026 whereby the writ petitions filed by the respective respondents have been allowed and their termination orders set aside and respondents have been permitted to continue in service.

4. The admitted position is that the respondents were earlier in service and after attaining the age of superannuation, by identical orders, respondents were given contractual engagement on the terms and conditions contained in the respective orders of appointment. The relevant clauses which are germaine for the disposal of the present appeals are clauses 6 and 8 of the contractual engagement orders which are identical read as under:-

"6) In case of resignation from MPMRCL, you will not accept any commercial employment within two years/of your resignation from MPMRCL with any Contract/ Firm/ Company working for MPMRCL Projects in Madhya Pradesh or MPMRCL projects in any city. 8. Your Post Retirement Contractual Engagement is terminable on one month's notice on either side and is provisional subject to D&AR and Vigilance clearance from the parent department."

5. By respective office order dated 27.01.2026, services of the respondents were terminated by giving one month's notice. The office orders also imposed the conditions that the respondents would not take up any assignment with any Contract/Firm/Company working for the appellant project in Bhopal and Indore for the next two years. These office orders were challenged by the respondents by the respective writ petitions.

6. The contention of the writ petitioners was that the services could not be terminated and that the non-compete clause could not have been imposed upon the respondents as they had not resigned from the services and had been terminated.

7. During pendency of the writ petitions, a clarification was issued by the appellant that the non-compete restriction imposed in the office order had been withdrawn.

8 . Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that contract of engagement clearly stipulated that the engagement was terminable by one month's notice on either side and further stipulated that the appointment would be subject to the requirement of D& AR and vigilance clearance. He submits that subsequently by clarification dated 25.02.2026, it was clarified that the requirement of D&AR and vigilance clearance was not necessary as the same was not applicable in the case of re-employment contract. He submits that since the respondents were engaged on contract basis, their services were terminable by giving one month's notice on either side without assigning any reason.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2026/WA/815/WA_815_2026_FinalOrder_31-03-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.