Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raja Ramteke vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62947
1 WP-29928-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 29928 of 2023
RAJA RAMTEKE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pramod Singh Tomar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri H.S. Gupta - Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 8.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.5, the order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the respondent No.4, whereby on one hand the authorities have not extended the contract period of the petitioner and on the other, they have directed for recovery from the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed on the post of Testing Assistant vide order dated 06.06.2017 on contractual basis for a period of 3 years subject to extension of contract period and subject to work performance of the petitioner. On completion of three years period, looking to the work performance of the petitioner, the contract period was extended for a further period of 03 years upto 18.06.2023. The petitioner joined the respondent/department and served for six years with utmost satisfaction and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-12-2024 1:05:42 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62947 2 WP-29928-2023 devotion. There was no adverse remark against the petitioner. It is his case that on the basis of the false complaint, a show cause notice dated 19.12.2022 was issued to the petitioner under the Contract Service (Agreement and Service Condition) Amended Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amended Rules of 2018'). Certain allegations were levied against the petitioner and directions were given to initiate disciplinary action against him, but till date no disciplinary action is initiated against the petitioner. He immediately submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 26.12.2022. He has denied each and every contents of the show cause notice, but the authorities without providing any opportunity of hearing and without holding any disciplinary proceedings, vide order dated 20.04.2023 had directed to withhold next year increment of the petitioner. The candidates who were working along with the petitioner, their contract period has been extended, but the contract period of the petitioner was not extended. On 30.05.2023, the increment from the salary of the petitioner was directed to be deducted. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a detailed representation to the General Manager, but no action has been taken so far.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that with an intention to deprive the petitioner from subsequent working, the contract period has not been extended by the authorities. It is submitted that the State of Madhya Pradesh, General Administration Department has issued a new policy dated 22.07.2023 wherein certain directions/instructions have been issued with respect to contractual employees are concerned. The authorities were duty bound to follow the said instructions issued by the General Administration Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-12-2024 1:05:42 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62947 3 WP-29928-2023 Department. Without adhering to the aforesaid, the authorities have taken a decision not to extend the contract period of the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition has been filed.
4. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the authorities denying all the petition averments. It is contended that the petitioner was a contractual employee of the Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd. initially appointed on the post of Teaching Assistant for a period of three years. The petitioner's contract period was subsequently extended. On 30.05.2022 certain complaints were received against the petitioner from the female employees of the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and a letter dated 21.10.2022 was written from the Deputy General Manager, MPMKVVCL to Chief General Manager, MPMKVVCL, Bhopal communicating the complaints received from female employees. On the basis of the said complaints, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.12.2022. The petitioner submitted a response to the same on 26.12.2022 and considering the reply filed by the petitioner, a decision was taken on 20.04.2023 to withhold increment of the petitioner for next one year. Thereafter, it was decided not to continue the services of the petitioner. On 30.05.2023 the increment was deducted from the salary of the petitioner. On 14.06.2023, a letter was written by the Deputy General Manager, MPMKVVCL requesting that since the petitioner has apologized, he may be allow to continue. The petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.14896 of 2023 which was disposed off vide order dated 23.09.2023 with a direction to decide the representation. In pursuance to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-12-2024 1:05:42 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62947 4 WP-29928-2023 said direction, the impugned order has been passed on 02.11.2023. It is argued that the petitioner being a contractual employee is having limited rights and there is no vested right to ask for continuation in service. It is not a case where services of the petitioner has been terminated during subsistence of the contract period, however, the authorities have taken a decision not to extend the contract period of the petitioner. No grievance can be raised by the petitioner in not extending the contract period. The rights of a contractual employee are limited as has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. In the case of Yogesh Mahajan vs. Professor, RC Deka, Director, AIIMS Delhi (2018) 3 SCC 218 it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a contract employee has no right to ask for renewal of his contract period. They have further placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Ranjit Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No.1590 of 2016) wherein it is held that contractual/adhoc appointments come to an end by efflux of time and they do not have any vested right. On these grounds, they have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From the record, it is apparently clear that the petitioner was a contract employee initially appointed on the post of Teaching Assistant for a period of three years and subject to work performance and satisfaction of the authorities, the contract period may be extended. The contract period of the petitioner was extended for another term which was valid up to 18.06.2023. In the case in hand, several complaints were received against the petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-12-2024 1:05:42 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62947 5 WP-29928-2023 from the female employees. The complaints were taken note of by the senior officials and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.12.2023 which was duly responded by the petitioner. Considering the reply of the petitioner, the authorities took a decision to withhold the increment of next year in terms of the Amended Rules of 2018. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in terms of the Amended Rules of 2018. Thereafter, the authorities have taken a decision not to extend the contract period of the petitioner.
7. Rights of the contractual employee are limited and they do not have any vested right asking for continuation of their contract period. Their services can be terminated during the contract period also and the only remedy available to them is to pursue the authorities to claim compensation before the competent civil court. However, in the present case, the contract period of the petitioner is over. The authorities have not terminated the contract period of the petitioner. They have simply taken a decision not to extend the contract period looking to the work performance and complaints made against the petitioner by the female employees. Copy of the complaints along with the screen shots of the messages sent by the petitioner are filed along with the return.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92 has considered the rights of a contractual employee and has held as under:
"Where the relationship of master and servant is purely contractual, it is well settled that a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable, having regard to the bar contained in Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-12-2024 1:05:42 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62947 6 WP-29928-2023 section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even if the termination of the contract of employment (by dismissal or otherwise) is found to be illegal or in breach, the remedy of the employee is only to seek damages and not specific performance. Courts will neither declare such termination to be a nullity nor declare that the contract of employment subsists nor grant the consequential relief of reinstatement. The three well recognized exceptions to this rule are:
(i) where a civil servant is removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India (or any law made under Article 309);
(ii) where a workman having the protection of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is wrongly terminated from service; and
(iii) where an employee of a statutory body is terminated from service in breach or violation of any mandatory provision of a statute or statutory rules.
There is thus a clear distinction between public employment governed by statutory rules and private employment governed purely by contract. The test for deciding the nature of relief damages or reinstatement with consequential reliefs is whether the employment is governed purely by contract or by a statute or statutory rules. Even where the employer is a statutory body, where the relationship is purely governed by contract with no element of statutory governance, the contract of personal service will not be specifically enforceable. Conversely, where the employer is a non-statutory body, but the employment is governed by a statute or statutory rules, a declaration that the termination is null and void and that the employee should be reinstated can be granted by courts."
9. A Division Bench of this Court in the Brijendra Gupta vs. State of M.P. and Others (W.A.No.617 of 2015) vide order dated 18.03.2016 has held as Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-12-2024 1:05:42 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62947 7 WP-29928-2023 under:
"Each of the appellants accepted these conditions and were fully aware that their services would be continued on contract basis only for a period of 2 years. It is a different matter that the appellants were continued in service, but, by extending contract period, their appointment nevertheless, shall remain on contract basis. No document or Regulation has been filed by the appellants and atleast brought to our notice, which may even remotely suggest that there was an agreement reached between the parties that on completion of 5 years of contractual service the concerned employee would be regularized in service. The fact that the appellants have now become over age and will not be eligible for appointment elsewhere, cannot be the basis to answer the controversy. The matter has to be answered keeping in mind that the contractual employee cannot insist for regularization in absence of policy, scheme or regulation having the backing of law and enforceable against the employer. In the present case, no such document has been brought to our notice. As a result, it is not open to this Court to issue writ to direct the respondents to regularize the appellants in service. The fact that the appellants have served the respondent/Company for almost five years, by itself, cannot be the basis to issue such direction unless it is a case of legally enforceable right which has enured in favour of the appellants. That is not the case at hand."
10. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Mahajan (supra) has held as under:
"It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being so, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond 30th June 2010. At best, the petitioner could claim that the concerned authorities should consider extending his contract. We find that in fact due consideration was given to this and in spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences did not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his services on a contractual basis. We do not find any arbitrariness in the view taken by the concerned authorities and therefore reject this contention of the petitioner."Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-12-2024 1:05:42 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62947 8 WP-29928-2023
11. From the perusal of the aforesaid settled legal preposition of law with respect to rights of a contractual employee, it is apparently clear that the contractual employee has no vested rights to ask for continuation of his services. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Goyal (supra) has gone to the extent of that if the services of a contractual employee are terminated during the contract period, then only remedy available to the contractual employee is to approach the competent civil suit seeking compensation from the employer. It is further seen that by efflux of time, the contract appointment comes to an end. Admittedly, there was no extension granted to the petitioner after 18.06.2023. Prior to taking a decision not to extend the contract period of the petitioner, on the receipt of the complaints, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was made aware of the fact that there are certain complaints against him. As per the petitioner himself, his services were to be extended subject to satisfactory work of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. No detailed enquiry is required to be conducted in the matter as a decision has been taken by the authorities not to extend the contract period of the petitioner. The case in hand does not deal with a situation where services of the petitioner has been terminated during subsistence of the contract period.
12. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-12-2024 1:05:42 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62947 9 WP-29928-2023 sj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-12-2024 1:05:42 PM