Jharkhand High Court
Juvel Horo vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 September, 2017
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 7726 of 2011
----
1. Juvel Horo son of late Panlus Horo R/o Village Kotle, P.S. Karra, P.O. Tilini,
District Ranchi.
2. Wiliam Minz Son of Sonra Minz, Resident of Village Jima, P.O., Jima, P.S.
Kudu, District Lohardaga. ... Petitioners
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi.
5. Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-8, Palamu, Camp Bokaro.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: J.C. to A.G.
----
6 / 18.09.2017Hear learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 27.01.2011, by which they have been informed that their term of appointment is coming to an end as per the terms of the contract and as such, they would be relieved from service. Further prayer has been made to regularise the services of the petitioners.
3. The petitioners, who are ex-servicemen, after retirement from their service, were engaged by the State on contractual basis for a fixed term. Petitioners accepted the said terms and conditions and entered into an agreement with the State for a period of three years. On completion of the period of contract, their period was extended by one year. It is submitted that after the said extension, no further extension was granted. The petitioners, thus, stood dis-engaged in terms of the contract with effect from the date on which their contract came to an end.
4. Petitioners are seeking regularisation of their services and also challenging the impugned order by which they have been relieved.
5. It is an admitted case that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis and it is also admitted that the period of contract has come to an end. Petitioners made several representations for regularisation of their services, which were not considered.
26. Now the petitioners have already stood dis-engaged as per the terms of the contract with effect from 31.01.2011. Since there was a condition in the contract that their term shall come to an end after the contract period and since the appointment of the petitioners was contractual and contract has already come to an end, I find no illegality in dis-engagement of the petitioners as per the terms of the contract. Furthermore, as on date, there is no relationship of employer and employee as their contract of employment has already been terminated.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Oshiar Prasad & Others -versus- Employees in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 71", has held that it is a settled principle of law that absorption and regularisation in service can be claimed or/and granted only when the contract of employment subsists and is in force inter se employee and the employer. Once it comes to an end either by efflux of time or as per the terms of the contract of employment or by its termination by the employer, then in such event, the relationship of employee and employer comes to an end and no longer subsists, except for the limited purpose to examine the legality and correctness of its termination.
8. In view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oshiar Prasad (supra) also petitioners are not entitled for regularisation of their services.
9. There being no merit, this writ application is, thus, dismissed.
( Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02