Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Anil Kumar And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 9 July, 2019
Bench: V. Ramasubramanian, Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
CWP No.3011 of 2018.
Judgment reserved on 04.07.2019 Decided on: 9 .7.2019 Dr. Anil Kumar and another .....Petitioners.
Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents.
Coram
r to
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioners: Mr. Nipun Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India.
V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice.
Challenging a Notice inviting applications for the appointment of Medical Officers on contractual basis and also seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue on contract basis as Medical Officers, two doctors have come up with the above writ petition.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:31:11 :::HCHP 22. Heard Mr. Nipun Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, learned .
Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the respondents.
3. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence issued a Policy in the year 2003 for the welfare of Ex Servicemen. It was known as the "ExServicemen Contributory Health Scheme". The Scheme was launched w.e.f. 1.4.2003, with a view to provide Medicare to Ex Servicemen, pensioners and their dependents through a network of Polyclinics, Service Medical Facilities and Civil Empanelled/Govt. Hospitals spread across the country.
4. One of the broad features of this Scheme was to engage Medical Officers, who were themselves Ex Servicemen, on contract basis. If adequate number of Ex Servicemen medical personnel were not available, civilian medical professionals could be engaged on contract basis.
5. In accordance with the said Scheme, the first petitioner herein was appointed in the first instance, by the proceedings dated 10.5.2014 for a period of one year w.e.f.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:31:11 :::HCHP 316.5.2014 to 15.5.2015. Subsequently, he was again employed on contract basis by the proceedings dated .
13.5.2015, for a period of one year from 18.5.2015 to 17.5.2016. By three subsequent proceedings dated 25.5.2016, 3.8.2017 and 18.4.2018, the petitioner was engaged on contract, during the period 25.5.2016 to
6. to 19.5.2017, 5.8.2017 to 21.4.2018 and 1.5.2018 to 30.3.2019.
Similarly, the second petitioner herein was appointed as a Medical Officer on contract basis by a letter dated 18.4.2018, for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 1.5.2018 up to 30.3.2019.
7. It is relevant to note that the petitioners are actually retired State Government servants. As on date, both the petitioners herein have crossed 65 years of age.
8. Even before the current contracts of appointment issued to the petitioners, were to expire on 30.3.2019, the respondents issued the impugned employment notice inviting applications from Medical professionals for appointment on contract basis for a period of 11 months. Though this ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:31:11 :::HCHP 4 employment notice did not, in any way, affect the terms and conditions of contract of the petitioners, the petitioners have .
come up with the above writ petition not only challenging the impugned notice but also seeking a direction to the respondents to continue them on contract basis.
9. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners are retired Government servants. Their age is also not in dispute. The fact that the first petitioner was engaged from time to time on contract and the fact that the second petitioner has been engaged on a contract only w.e.f.
1.5.2018, are all not denied. But the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service up to the age of 68 years.
Therefore, it is their case that they should be allowed to continue. Though in the relief column of the writ petition, the petitioners have not confined their claim to continue in service up to the age of 68 years, the learned counsel for the petitioners at least conceded before us that the petitioners will be entitled to continue only up to the age of 68 years.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:31:11 :::HCHP 510. But the claim of the petitioners appears to be baseless. At the outset, the petitioners have no right to .
challenge the impugned employment notice. There is no indication in the impugned employment notice that the contracts of appointment issued to the petitioners would get terminated. The Scheme floated by the Central Government envisaged the appointment of a large number of Medical personnel. Therefore, two persons cannot come to Court challenging the employment notice. Hence the first prayer sought by the writ petitioners is thoroughly misconceived.
11. The second relief claimed by the petitioners in the writ petition is to allow them to continue. The petitioners have not even indicated the date up to which they are entitled to continue. If the writ petition is to be allowed, the petitioners would become entitled to continue as long as they wish. Therefore, such a prayer cannot be entertained.
12. In any case, even their prayer for continuing them up to the age of 68 years cannot be allowed, since their ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:31:11 :::HCHP 6 claim is not based upon any Rules. Admittedly, they were appointed under a Scheme which contemplates .
appointments on contract basis. The first petitioner has been working on contract basis from 2014. There is not a single condition incorporated in the contract, which allows them to continue up to the age of 68 years. Therefore, the writ petition is completely devoid of merits, and hence it is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.
(V. Ramasubramanian) Chief Justice (Anoop Chitkara) Judge July 9, 2019.
(cm Thakur ) ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:31:11 :::HCHP