Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1953 (RAJ)

Roopram v. State of Rajasthan

2022-07-05

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The matters come upon (i) an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India filed by the respondent-Department for vacation of the interim order dated 02.11.2018 and (ii) an application preferred on behalf of the petitioners for release of their due salary. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters have been heard finally. 3. The present writ petitions have been filed against the order dated 31.08.2018 whereby the services of the petitioners have sought to be terminated. 4. Brief facts of the case are that:- The petitioners were appointed as Computer Operator (Man with Machine) with the respondent-Department. In the year 2016, the services of the petitioners were sought to be terminated vide order dated 06.05.2016. Against the said order, several writ petitions were filed before this Court and the writ petitions of some of the petitioners were disposed of vide order dated 18.01.2018 with the following observations:- "2. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Computer Operator Man with Machine and have been discharging their duties for more than 10 years. The extension of the yearly contract was being made by the respondents. The communication dated 17.04.2013 (Annexure-4) reflects that the respondents themselves were satisfied with the services of the petitioners and their necessity was recorded. The respondents also contemplated regularization of the services of the petitioner vide Annexure-9. However, the respondents made a communication dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure-10) which sought to remove the petitioners from their services. 3. The respondents have submitted in their reply that the petitioners were contractual employees and they have entered the contract with an open eyes and thus, cannot seek any kind of continuance. The respondents have further pleaded in their reply that any kind of absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of the temporary contractual employment cannot be claim as any public employment dehors the constitutional scheme cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The respondents have also submitted that the vary basis of the contractual appointment is the conditions on which the contract is made and admittedly it is a yearly contract and therefore, the respondents were not in a position to continue the same. 5. The respondents have also submitted that the vary basis of the contractual appointment is the conditions on which the contract is made and admittedly it is a yearly contract and therefore, the respondents were not in a position to continue the same. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that a contractual employees’ services cannot be terminated except for 3 apparent reasons: Firstly, the contractual employee is not rendering satisfactory services and therefore, their services are no longer required. Secondly, the scheme/plan/project/post is abolished and is no more in existence. Thirdly, the petitioners are being replaced by regularly selected candidates for the same post. 6. Since, the respondents have not made out any of the aforesaid reasons for taking the decision of terminating the services of the petitioners, therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of while directing the respondents to continue the petitioners until one of the above three reasons are available to the respondents to take such decision of discontinuance. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to take any further action strictly in accordance with law while complying with the aforementioned terms." 5. After passing of the order dated 18.01.2018, the services of the petitioners were continued and now vide impugned order dated 31.08.2018, their services were again sought to be terminated. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. 6. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners placed on record an office order dated 29.04.2022 whereby sanction of certain posts for Computer Operator Man with Machine has again been given by the State authorities. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the three conditions as laid down in the earlier order dated 18.01.2018, the services of the petitioners cannot be terminated. He submitted that again the petitioners are sought to be replaced by other contractual employees, which is in contravention of condition no. 3 of the earlier order and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that two conditions of the earlier order having already been fulfilled, the respondent-Department is under no obligation to continue the services of the petitioners. 3 of the earlier order and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that two conditions of the earlier order having already been fulfilled, the respondent-Department is under no obligation to continue the services of the petitioners. Learned AAG submitted that firstly, the Sarathi Project under which the present petitioners were working, had already come to an end somewhere in December 2015 to January 2016. Secondly, the regular selections have already been made in the year 2018 itself and therefore the services of the present petitioners are no more required by the Department and so the same cannot now, be continued. So far as the office order dated 29.04.2022 is concerned, learned AAG submitted that the said sanction had been issued only because certain employees were protected by the interim orders of this Court and therefore, to continue them, the sanction is essential every year. Further, learned AAG submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9929/2018; (Bharat Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) decided on 24.05.2019, whereby the writ petition of the similarly situated employees was rejected on the ground that regular recruitment on the posts had been made by the Department. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The fact that the regular selections had been made by the Department in the year 2015 as well as in 2018 and appointments have been made in pursuance thereof, is not in dispute. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the issue in question is squarely covered by Bharat Kumar Sharma’s case (supra). Moreover, the project i.e. Sarathi Project, for which the present petitioners had been selected has come to an end, is also not in dispute. 11. Therefore, the order dated 18.01.2018 vide which the services of the petitioners were protected till the period anyone of the three conditions mentioned therein is fulfilled, has now been taken care of. The project has come to an end and regularly selected candidates have been appointed, therefore, the present petitioners cannot be continued in service. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 31.08.2018. The project has come to an end and regularly selected candidates have been appointed, therefore, the present petitioners cannot be continued in service. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 31.08.2018. However, in view of the office order dated 29.04.2022, it is made clear that if in pursuance to the same, any person is appointed in replacement of any of the petitioners herein, it would be open for the said petitioners to claim priority for continuance in service and the service of such petitioners would not be replaced by any other similarly situated persons. 12. The other relief, as prayed for in present writ petitions is for grant of the remuneration for the period for which the petitioners had worked. It has been submitted by the learned AAG that the amount qua the salary of the petitioners till the passing of the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 has already been made to the concerned placement agency and the claim of the petitioners qua the salary if any, till that period, would lie only against the placement agency. So far as the period from 31.08.2018 till date is concerned, learned AAG assures the Court that the same would be paid to the placement agency within a period of eight weeks from the passing of this order. 13. In view of the submission made by the learned AAG, no direction needs to be passed by this Court qua the said relief too. However, the petitioners would be free to raise their objections, if any, regarding the unpaid salary after the period of eight weeks if the same is not paid till that date. 14. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 15. All pending applications also stand disposed of.