JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The case has been called in revised. None appeared. The Bench Secretary has placed before me a copy of the letter dated 24.8.2013 of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice informing that the Association has resolved to abstain from judicial work on 26.8.2013, which has been circulated under the order of Hon’ble Senior Judge dated 24.8.2013 to this Bench. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record and heard the learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. In all the writ petitions common questions of facts and law are involved and therefore they have been taken together and being decided by this common judgment. 3. The Parliament, in furtherance of its public welfare activities, enacted National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2005”) with an objective for enhancement of livelihood security of the poor households in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment to every poor household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. 4. Petitioners under a contract of personal service are working as Technical Assistant under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “NREGS”). They have been directed by means of the orders impugned in these writ petitions to execute a contract on the prescribed format, with the further direction that in case such contracts are not executed by them, it shall be presumed that they are not interested to continue to work in the aforesaid capacity, besides, withholding honorarium, payable to them. 5. The common ground taken on behalf of petitioners is that once they have been employed under a service contract without any limitation of time, which is continuing, there is no justification or authority vested with the respondents to compel them to execute a fresh contract on a prescribed format wherein terms and conditions are different. It is said that the existing terms and conditions of employment of petitioners, under the existing contract of personal service, so long as that contract is continuing, cannot be altered by the respondents, by extending threat of termination or non payment of honorarium to petitioners and this insistence on the part of respondents is patently illegal, without jurisdiction and, even otherwise, arbitrary. 6. 6. Before dealing with the rival contentions on the issues raised in these writ petitions, it would be necessary to have a brief factual matrix of these cases. I may give relevant facts involved in all these writ petitions in very brief, separately (writ petition wise): (a) Writ Petition No. 7998 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “first petition”) has been filed by 41 petitioners, who are working as Technical Assistant in District Sonbhadra under NREGS. It is said that advertisement were published in the year 2006-08 in various daily newspapers inviting applications for preparation of panel of Junior Engineer/Technical Assistant in District Sonbhadra. Petitioners applied and a selection committee after perusing testimonials/educational merits of the petitioners and also on the basis of interview, selected them. The aforesaid recommendation of selection committee was approved by the State Government and, thereafter, appointment letters were issued. One of such appointment letter has been placed on record as Annexure 4 to the writ petition (at page 29) which pertains to Sri Avadh Narayan Singh, impleaded as petitioner No. 22. The aforesaid recommendation of selection committee was approved by the State Government and, thereafter, appointment letters were issued. One of such appointment letter has been placed on record as Annexure 4 to the writ petition (at page 29) which pertains to Sri Avadh Narayan Singh, impleaded as petitioner No. 22. The aforesaid letter is in the form of an Office Order, passed by District Program Coordinator, Sonbhadra (who is District Magistrate in the present case), and, it reads as under: ^^’kklukns’k la[;k&1225@38&7&2007@ 10 ,uvkjbZth @05 Vh0lh0 fnukad&03 flrEcj 2007 esa nh x;h O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj rduhdh lgk;d ds :i esa bEiSuyesUV esa vkidk uke vuqeksfnr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vkidk jk”V~h; xzkeh.k jkstxkj xkjUVh ;kstuk ds vUrxZr fodkl [k.M ?kksjkoy esa dk;Z lEiknu gsrq vknsf’kr fd;k tkrk gSA rduhdh lgk;d }kjk nh tkus okyh lsokvksa ds cnys fuEufyf[kr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj ekuns; dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxk%& 1- ifj;kstuk dk izkDdyu rS;kj djus gsrq ifj;kstuk ykxr dk 0-5 izfr’kr Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA 2- ifj;kstuk dk fuekZ.k dk;Z iw.kZ gksus ds i’pkr rduhdh Ik;Zos{k.k gsrq ifj;kstuk dh ykxr dk 0-1 izfr’kr vfrfjDr :i ls ns; gksxkA 3- ifj;kstuk dk vkx.ku rS;kj djus] ifj;kstuk dk i;Zos{k.k djus bR;kfn ds fy, izfr ekg 700@& ;k=k HkRrk ds :i esa ns; gksxkA 4- rduhdh lgk;d dk eq[;ky;] ftyk lksuHknz@ {ks= ia;k;r & ?kksjkoy gksxkA 5- rduhdh lgk;d dh lsokvksa ds lkis{k ekuns; bR;kfn dk Hkqxrku jk”V~h; xzkeh.k jkstxkj xkjUVh ;kstuk ds vUrxZr iz’kkldh; O;; en esa miyc/k /kujkf’k ls dk;Zdze vfèkdkjh }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA 6- {ks= iapk;r ds dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh@[k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh }kjk {ks= iapk;r dh lhek ds vUrxZr ,d U;k; iapk;r dh xzke iapk;r dk vkoaVu fd;k tk;sxkA ;fn fdlh ekeys esa vkidks nks”kh ik;k tkrk gS rks iSuy ls gVkus vFkok uke fujLr djus dh dk;Zokgh ‘kklukns’k esa fufgr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj dh tk;sxhA** English Translation by the Court: “The provision as contained in Government Order No. 1225/38-7-2007/10 NREG /05 T.C. dated 3rd September 2007 approves your name in the empanelment as Technical Assistant and you are directed to work in Block Ghorawal under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The remuneration in lieu of services to be rendered by the Technical Assistant shall be paid as per the following provisions: 1. 0.5% of the project cost shall be paid for preparation of the project estimates. 2. The remuneration in lieu of services to be rendered by the Technical Assistant shall be paid as per the following provisions: 1. 0.5% of the project cost shall be paid for preparation of the project estimates. 2. On completion of the construction work of the project, 0.1% of the project cost shall be additionally payable for technical supervision. 3. Rs. 700/- per month shall be payable as traveling allowance for preparation of the project estimates, supervision thereof etc. 4. District Sonbhadra/Kshetra Panchayat - Ghorawal shall be headquarter for the Technical Assistant. 5. Under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, the payment of remuneration etc. in respect of the services of Technical Assistant shall be made by the Program Officer from the amount available in the account head of administrative expenditure. 6. Within the limits of a Kshetra Panchayat, a Gram Panchayat out of a Nyay Panchayat shall be alloted by the Program Officer/Block Development Officer of Kshetra Panchayat. If you are found guilty in any case then the proceedings for removal from the panel or deletion of name shall be initiated as per the provision as contained in the Government Order.” It is said that pursuant to appointments made in the similar manner, all the petitioners are working for the last more than five years and have not been communicated anything adverse with regard to their work and performance, by the competent authorities. (b) Writ Petition No. 21321 of 2013 has been filed by 13 petitioners of District Aligarh. All other facts are similar to first petition but the only difference, which is of some assistance, for understanding the matter, is that, the format of contract which petitioners have now been asked to execute has also been filed as part of Annexure-1 and it is on page 34 of the writ petition. I shall refer other relevant conditions mentioned in the aforesaid format, subsequently, as and when the occasion and necessity may arise. © Writ Petition No. 24019 of 2013 has been filed by 36 petitioners working in District Lalitpur. (d) Writ Petition No. 28368 of 2013 has been filed by 27 petitioners working in District Mainpuri and Sultanpur. (e) Writ Petitions No. 32471 of 2013 and 62437 of 2011 have been filed respectively by 24 and 4 petitioners working in District Mainpuri. © Writ Petition No. 24019 of 2013 has been filed by 36 petitioners working in District Lalitpur. (d) Writ Petition No. 28368 of 2013 has been filed by 27 petitioners working in District Mainpuri and Sultanpur. (e) Writ Petitions No. 32471 of 2013 and 62437 of 2011 have been filed respectively by 24 and 4 petitioners working in District Mainpuri. (f) Writ Petitions No. 15749 of 2012, 43665 of 2011 and 23541 of 2010 have been filed respectively by 7, 5 and 4 petitioners working in District Sonbhadra. (g) Writ Petition No. 22749 of 2012 has been filed by 99 petitioners working in District Kushinagar. (h) Writ Petition No. 49606 of 2012 has been filed by 41 petitioners of District Mahoba. (i) Writ Petition No. 62397 of 2012 has been filed by 12 petitioners working in District Hathras (Mahamaya Nagar). (j) Writ Petitions No. 65010 of 2012 and 67430 of 2012 has been filed respectively by 64 and 28 petitioners working in District Chandauli. (k) Writ Petition No. 67433 of 2012 has been filed by 14 petitioners working as Technical Assistant in District Chandauli. 7. Learned Standing Counsel contended that the petitioners were engaged on contract basis and payment of honorarium. They are not permanent employees or holding any substantive post. Government Order dated 13.1.2010 and 19.1.2010 provide that the services of petitioners engaged by committee, constituted under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, shall be taken on the basis of a contract. It is in furtherance thereof, petitioners have been required to execute agreement for extension of their engagement. He submitted that since petitioners’ engagement is of precarious nature and they have no right to continue, therefore, there is no obstruction in the way of respondents in requiring petitioners to execute a new contract on a prescribed format which is consistent with the Government Orders dated 13.1.2010 and 19.1.2010. 8. The short question up for consideration is whether the petitioners can be compelled to execute a contract for personal service, afresh, with altered conditions of employment to their detriment, so as to have the effect of cessation/revocation/cancellation of existing orders of appointment under which they were employed, and working, and whether this action of respondents has any sanction of law. 9. It cannot be doubted that a person engaged on a contract basis has to abide by the terms of such contract. 9. It cannot be doubted that a person engaged on a contract basis has to abide by the terms of such contract. Anyone of the party to the contract can terminate contract. Such termination, if unlawful or in breach of the terms of the contract, may be dealt with by the aggrieved party by raising such dispute as permissible in common law. For example, for a breach of contract, aggrieved party can always resort to the proceedings in common law claiming damages/compensation, and, wherever is permissible in law, continuance of contract. In the present case, however, that is not the situation. The mere fact that petitioners’ appointment/employment is contractual and they are not holding a permanent office makes no difference in the present status of their right to continue since, admittedly, respondents have not chosen to terminate the contract till date. The initial alleged contractual employment, pursuant to the letter of appointment noted above, is still continuing. It is not the case of respondents that this contract has been cancelled or terminated or revoked in one or the other manner. 10. Once the contract is continuing between the parties, I do not find any justification for one of the parties, to compel, and, that too, unilaterally, the other party in the contract, to execute another contract with altered terms and conditions, some of which may be to the detriment of other party, to which it/they may not be agreeable. Without cancelling the earlier contract, such insistence on the part of respondents compelling petitioners to execute a fresh contract has no sanction of law and cannot be held valid. I do not doubt the contention of learned Standing Counsel that petitioner’s engagement is contractual and they are paid only honorarium, therefore, they have no right to insist for continuance of contract for any length of period, but once the respondents themselves have chosen not to revoke earlier contract, during continuance of earlier contract, petitioners cannot be compelled to come forward to execute another contract. In view thereof, I have no manner of doubt that the respondents are acting wholly illegally in compelling petitioners to execute a fresh contract, during subsistence of earlier contract/appointment letter. 11. In view of above, all these writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are restrained from compelling petitioners to execute a fresh contract on the prescribed format. 12. In view thereof, I have no manner of doubt that the respondents are acting wholly illegally in compelling petitioners to execute a fresh contract, during subsistence of earlier contract/appointment letter. 11. In view of above, all these writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are restrained from compelling petitioners to execute a fresh contract on the prescribed format. 12. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not be construed as if the parties are precluded from entering into a new contract/fresh contract/fresh appointment, after existing one ceases to continue. It shall also not be construed so as to disentitle or disable any of the parties, in bringing, the existing contract, to an end at their volition.