Heard Smt. Bulbul Godiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. P. Bajpai, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
Facts in brief are that the Ministry of Health, New Delhi constituted a programme known as National Leprosy Eradication Programme.
The said programme is being implemented by the State level Leprosy Society in 9 approved Leprosy Eradication Units and 47 S.A.T. Centres and has constituted District Leprosy Societies in each and every District of the State.
In the year 1993, Director Joint Medical and Health Services, Lucknow issued an order by which it was provided that under the M.D.T. Project Leprosy units have been created and District Leprosy Societies have been brought in existence and posts have also been sanctioned and against the aforesaid posts appointments will be made.
Thereafter an order dated 17.06.1993 (Annexure 2) had been issued, laying down procedure for appointment on the post of Non Medical Assistants (Para Medical Worker) and Non Medical Supervisor.
In pursuance to the same, an advertisement dated 28.10.1994 was issued in daily newspaper and names were called for from the Employment Exchange for appointment on the post of Non Medical Assistants (Para Medical Workers) (hereinafter referred to as PMW).
In response to the same, names of the petitioners were called from the Employment Exchange, Gonda and accordingly appeared before the selection committee consists: a Leprosy Advisor from the Central Government, Chief Medical Officer and District Leprosy Officer and after the interview they were appointed for the post of Para Medical Workers on contract basis by dated 21.3.1995 passed by District Leprosy Officer for a fixed term as mentioned therein, one of the appointment order (in respect of petitioner no.1 Ramesh Kumar Shukla) is being reproduced herein below:-
Secretary/Disrtt. Leprosy Society, Gonda Memorandum District Leprosy Officer Gonda (district) is pleased to appoint Mr. Ramesh Kumar S/o Nand Kumar Shukla of the post of P.M.W. R/o Village and Post Sajanwala, Janpath Gonda, District Gonda (post) at MDT project on behalf of District Leprosy Society Gonda (Distt) on contract basis on the following terms and conditions:-
1-He/She will be paid fixed wages of Rs. 100=00 per day to the maximum of Rs. 3000=00 in a month-No other benefits will be admissible. For days of absence, the amount will be deducted proportionately.
2-Other conditions of assignment will be governed by the Administrative & Financial guidelines of National Leprosy Eradication programme as may be amended from time to time.
The assignment is on fixed wages basis and it will not confer any right for regular appointment.
4-There will be no employee /employer relationship. Neither the State/Central Government nor the District Leprosy society will be liable for any compensation for sickness injury etc. during the period of contract.
5-Contract will be initially for a period of 3 years. It will be extendable by one year each time till the project period, subject to satisfactory performance.
6-Contract can be terminated without any notice any time.
7-The contract will be terminated at the end of the project period. There will not be any claim for regular appointment under any circumstances."
In pursuance to the same, petitioners joined on the post in question and as per their version they continued to discharge their duties till the end of the contract period for which they were initially appointed. Subsequently the said contractual appointment was extended from time to time and the last extension given to the petitioners on the post in question was upto 31.3.2004. However the competent authority by means of order dated 9.03.2004 did not extend the terms of their appointment orders on contractual basis.
Aggrieved by the said facts, petitioners filed present writ petition before this court challenging the said order dated 9.3.2004 as contained in Annexure No.1 with a prayer that opposite parties be directed to allow the petitioners to continue in service as Non Medical Assistant/Para Medical Workers and pay them salary regularly each and every month as they were given prior to 31.3.2004.
Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned orders submits that petitioners were engaged on contractual basis as Non Medical Assistants (Para Medical Workers) in the year 1995 after due selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee and after adopting regular procedure and they have worked on contract basis as Para Medical Workers since the year 1995 till March, 2004. So, there was no justification or reasons not to extend their contractual appointment. The said action is nothing of the amounts to terminate the services as such the said action is arbitrary, unjust and unfair and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, submits that as the petitioners were appointed as contractual employee and the last contractual appointment has come to an end on 31.3.2004, as such thereafter they have no right whatsoever to continue on the post in question. So the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for petitioners, the undisputed facts which emerged out are that the petitioners were appointed as contractual employee on the post of Para Medical Workers in the year 1995 and thereafter they continued in the said capacity till their last contractual appointment came to an end on 31.3.2004.
In view of the abovesaid facts, the question which arises for consideration in the present case is whether the petitioners who are appointed on contractual basis have got any right to get their contractual appointment, extended/observed in service after the expiry of the term of the contractual employment. Answer to the above said question finds place in the following decisions.
In the case of Director Institute of Management Development U.P. Vs. Smt. Puspa Srivastava, J.T. 1992 (4) S.C. 489 wherein the Apex Court held as under:-
"Para No. 23 - In the instant case, there is no such rule. The appointment was purely ad hoc and on a contractual basis for a limited period. Therefore, by expiry of the period of six months, the right to remain in the post comes to an end."
Division Bench of this court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation and another Vs. Sri Rajeev Kumar Srivastava 1994 (12) LCD held as under:-
Para No. 17 - The next submission of the learned counsel of the appellants is that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development U.P. (supra) determines the case of the parties may be seen. In this case Honb'le Supreme Court has held that where the appointment is purely on ad hoc basis and is contractual and by efflux of time the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post can have no right to continue on the said post. We have considered the submissions. The ratio of the judgment of Honb'le the Supreme Court leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner's contractual employment oh daily payment basis having come to end by efflux of time, does not amount to retrenchment. Thus the provision of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act is also not attracted."
Further Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mishra 2002(10) SCC 583 held as under:-
"Secondly, the respondent was appointed on 1.2.1972 on contract basis for a period of three years. This period of contract was extended up to 31.1.1978. when the respondent was only a contractual employee, there could be no question of his being granted the relief of being directed to be appointed as a regular employee."
The same view again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Account Officer (A&I) A.P. SRTC and Another Vs. P.Chandra Sekhara Rao and others, 2006 (7) SCC page 488.
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others, IT 2006 (4) SC 420, in Para 34 of the judgment has observed as under:-
"If it is contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued."
In the case of Uma Devi (Supra) the Apex Court in para 36 of the judgment has observed as under:-
"It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain not at arms length since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. IF the Court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the Court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such causal or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or causally, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast, contrary are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accepts the casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flawing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature o f his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term."
For the foregoing reasons, as the appointment of the petitioners are for a fixed term, they have no right to continue beyond the period indicated in their appointment orders which was a time bound for a fix period (31.3.2004), extension of appointment by judicial order is not permissible under law as fixed term appointment would come to an end automatically by efflux of time.
Hence, there is neither illegality nor infirmity in the order dated 09.03.2004 (Annexures 1) passed by Joint Director Leprosy, Lucknow. So, petitioners are not entitled for any relief as claimed by them in the present writ petition.
Thus, the present writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Dated: 17.10.2011 D.K.