Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2070 (RAJ)

Krishan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-12-10

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for continuance of his contractual appointment. 2. Facts in brief are that the State Government, by its notification dated 28.10.2009 formed 10 new Panchayat Samities including the Panchayat Samiti, Gharsana. Certain posts were created in the Panchayat Samiti, Gharsana vide order dated 30.11.2009. 3. The petitioner claims that the posts were substantive but were sanctioned on contract basis. Two posts of Computer Operator and three posts of Class IV employee were sanctioned vide the aforesaid order. The procurement of the employees on the contractual posts was to be carried out by the Panchayat Samiti at its own level. The Vikas Adhikari of the said Panchayat Samiti published a general notice dated 28.5.2010 inviting applications for the post of Computer Operator and Class IV employees. 4. The petitioner claims that he applied for the said post and was appointed on the post of Assistant Employee i.e. Class-IV for a period of one year vide order dated 3.6.2010. The petitioner executed a contract/agreement for being appointed on the said post and the term of the contractual appointment of the petitioner was fixed from 18.6.2010 to 31.3.2011 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,600/- per month. The petitioner claims that he worked satisfactorily on the post and no complaint was ever received regarding his performance. 5. However, the Local M.L.A. was having a political rivalry with the Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Gharsana. In order to damage the Pradhan's reputation and for getting political mileage, he posed a question in the Assembly regarding the appointments being illegal. In pursuance of the question thus posed by the M.L.A., information was sought from the Vikas Adhikari regarding the manner in which the appointments were given. The Vikas Adhikari gave a reply to the Assembly that no placement agency was operational in Gharsana and due to urgent need of employees, appointments were made directly by the Panchayat Samiti. 6. In furtherance of various communications exchanged in this regard, an order Annex.P/6 dated 18.2.2011 came to be issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar directing termination of services of the employees appointed on contractual basis and to prepare a charge-sheet against the Vikas Adhikari. The order was based on the reason that the Vikas Adhikari was not competent to appoint the employees on contractual basis. 7. The order was based on the reason that the Vikas Adhikari was not competent to appoint the employees on contractual basis. 7. On the very same day i.e. 18.2.2011, the petitioner's services were ordered to be terminated with immediate effect vide order Annex.P/8 of even date. The petitioner claims that the termination of his services without providing an opportunity of hearing and without conducting any euquiry is unjust and contrary to law. He emphasised that there was no complaint regarding his conduct and as such, the respondents were totally unjustified in terminating his services in an arbitrary manner. The action thus taken apart from being arbitrary and also violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of termination Annex.P/8 in this writ petition. 8. The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition stating that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on contractual basis. As per the terms of the contract, the appointment was only for a period of one year and did not give any right to the petitioner to claim continuance of services. Clause 7(i) of the contract specifically stipulates that the contract was liable to be terminated with one month's notice on either side or by depositing/paying one month's package/contract amount in lieu of notice. The petitioner was paid one month's advanced salary before terminating the contractual service as no need was felt to continue his services. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is wholly unjustified and arbitrary and the writ petition deserves to be accepted and a direction be issued that the petitioner should be continued on the post of Class IV employee till regularly selected candidates are available. 10. This Court, vide order dated 23.2.2011 had stayed the operation of the order dated 18.2.2011 and it was directed that if the petitioner had been relieved, then the position as was existing prior to 18.2.2011 was required to be restored. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner continues to work on the said post. 11. It is relevant to mention here that the contract Annex.P/4 which was executed between the parties while granting contractual appointment to the petitioner clearly stipulates that the period of contract was from 18.6.2010 to 31.3.2011. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner continues to work on the said post. 11. It is relevant to mention here that the contract Annex.P/4 which was executed between the parties while granting contractual appointment to the petitioner clearly stipulates that the period of contract was from 18.6.2010 to 31.3.2011. The contract was extendable by mutual consent for a period of not more than one year at a time but could not exceed, in any case, for five years in all or the date of closure of the scheme, whichever was earlier. Furthermore, in case of external/Central Government funding for project being withheld before the date of normal date of closure, the agreement was apt to be terminated automatically at the end of one month from the date of intimation. 12. In view of the aforesaid stipulation in the contract, it is evident that the maximum term, for which the contractual appointment could be continued in any eventuality, was five years. The petitioner has already enjoyed working on the post without any extension as per Clause (1) sub-clause (ii) of the contract under the stay order passed by this Court. The outer limit of five years prescribed in sub-clause (ii) is also approaching shortly. In any eventuality, the petitioner would not be entitled to claim continuance beyond the said period. 13. A similarly placed employee Fattu Ram approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1616/2011 and the said writ petition was disposed of giving him liberty to submit a representation before the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Gharsana for extending his contract. It was further directed that if any such representation was moved by the employee, the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Gharsana would be under an obligation to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order. 14. In view of the discussion made above, the petitioner is also given the same liberty to make a representation to the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Gharsana with a prayer for extension of his services. 15. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Gharsana for extension of his services within a period of 15 days from today. 15. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Gharsana for extension of his services within a period of 15 days from today. If any such representation is moved by the petitioner, the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Gharsana shall consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 15 days thereafter. It is, however, made clear that in no condition, the petitioner would be entitled to claim extension beyond the outer limit specified in sub-clause (ii) of clause (1) of the contract. In the event, the respondents seek to procure further contractual appointments and in the event of the petitioner applying for the same, his experience shall be given due consideration and weightage. 16. No order as to cost.Writ Petition disposed of. *******