Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Badan Singh Jatavs/O Shriheeralal vs The Union Of India on 10 August, 2020
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9188/2019
1. Badan Singh Jatavs/o Shriheeralal, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o 65, Shakti Nagar, Newaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
2. Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o Shrikalyansahaimeena, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Nangwalsusawatan, Rali Ki Dhani,
Tehsil Aamer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Mahendra Kumar Meena S/o Shrijagdish Prasad Meena,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o Gulabwari Via Samod, Tehsil
Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Ayush, Government Of India, Jawaharlal Nehru
Bhartiyachikitsaevam Homeopathy Anusandhan Bhawan
61-65, Institutional Area, Opp. D Block, Janakpuri, New
Delhi.
2. The Director General, C.c.r.a.s., Ministry Of Ayush,
Government Of India, Jawaharlal Nehru
Bhartiyachikitsaevam Homeopathy Anusandhanbhawan
61-65, Institutional Area, Opp. D Block, Janakpuri, New
Delhi.
3. The Assistant Director In-Charge, M.s. Regional Ayurveda
Research Institute For Endocrine Disorders, Indira Colony,
Bani Park, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary
Department Of Medical And Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Shivendra Singh Rathore, Adv.
(Through V.C.) For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Addl. Solicitor General (Through V.C.) with Mr. Aneesh Khandelwal, Adv. present in the Court Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. (Through V.C.) (Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 09:09:54 PM) (2 of 7) [CW-9188/2019] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 10/08/2020 Matter comes up on the application filed by the respondents for vacation of ex-parte interim order dt.27.05.2019 Learned counsel for the petitioners Dr.Shivendra Singh Rathore submitted that this Court on 27.05.2019 had issued notices in the writ petition as well as stay application and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioners to continue and restrained to replace the petitioners by another set of contractual employees, in pursuance of impugned order dt.07.02.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Data Entry Operator and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were appointed as Multi Task Staff. Learned counsel submitted that before appointment of the petitioners on contract basis, an Advertisement No. 1/2015 dt. 30.10.2015 was issued and the petitioners after being found successful in the selection process, came to be appointed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that appointment of the petitioner No. 1 as Data Entry Operator was in Scheduled Castes Sub Plan(SCSP) project or known as Ayurveda Mobile Swasthaya Rakashan Project and the petitioner No. 2 was also appointed in SCSP Project, while the petitioner No. 3 was appointed in Tribal Health Care Programme(THCRP).
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the initial appointment of the petitioners, they were continued without any interruption and all of a sudden an order dt. 07.02.2019 was issued, whereby the term of the contract period was extended up (Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 09:09:54 PM) (3 of 7) [CW-9188/2019] to 31.03.2019 and as such, the services of the petitioners were discontinued by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents are still continuing with their different projects and their intention was to replace the petitioners with another set of contractual employees and as such, this Court considering all these aspects, passed an interim order dt.27.5.2019.
Learned counsel submitted that the respondents being employer, if continued with the different projects, they were required to consider the petitioners as eligible with experience and as such there was no justification to issue order dt.07.02.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the one hand services of the petitioners were discontinued and on the other hand, the respondents continued other persons in the new project, which they are continuing and as such discrimination has been writ large.
Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the petitioners have not come with the clean hands before this Court and in fact the correct position with regard to functioning of the petitioners was not informed, as writ petition was filed on 14.05.2019 and services of the petitioners were already discontinued on 31.03.2015.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners also did not inform this Court that no person in place of the petitioners were appointed and they were not replaced by another set of contractual employees.
Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG, on merits of the matter, submitted that appointment of the (Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 09:09:54 PM) (4 of 7) [CW-9188/2019] petitioners on the post of Data Entry Operator and Multi Task Staff was only in specific project known as SCSP and THCRP and since these programmes came to an end on 31.03.2019, as such the respondents were not under any legal obligation to continue the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. R.D Rastogi, ASG further submitted that the terms of the appointment of the petitioners had specifically mentioned that the services of the petitioners could be terminated any time and the services were automatically had to come to an end on completion of the project. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have specifically pleaded in their reply that both the projects THCRP and AMHCP under SCSP have come to an end not only in Jaipur Institute but also in other 20 peripheral Institutes of CCRAS.
Learned counsel informed this Court that the circular dated 20.12.2018 was issued in this respect, where projects were closed in as many as 20 Institutes and the new project, which was initiated for the year 2019-20, had different objective and staff pattern.
Learned counsel submitted that fresh proposal for Ayurveda Mobile Swasthaya Rakashan Project(SCSP) for the year 2019-20 was initiated by way of issuing a letter dt.15.05.2019 and the staff pattern for the new project does not have any post of Data Entry Operator now known as Office Assistant.
Learned counsel further submitted that one post of Driver- cum-MTA and one post of MTA/MTS was available in the new project and since one post of MTA was already occupied, as such the petitioners could not have been continued in service. (Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 09:09:54 PM)
(5 of 7) [CW-9188/2019] Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the staff pattern for new project THCRP under Tribal Sub-Plan to RARIECD, Jaipur was also having separate staff pattern and there was no post of Data Entry Operator or Office Assistant and there was only one post of Pharmacist, one post of Driver and one post of MTS.
Learned counsel submitted that the respondents, in order to consider the staffing pattern, were conscious that the petitioners' services could not be continued as vacancies were not in existence and as such, petitioners do not have any right to seek mandamus to continue them even on contract basis.
Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. R.D Rastogi, ASG has further submitted that the various undertakings given by the petitioners at the time of their employment, clearly reveal that the petitioners had specifically given in writing that they will not claim any regularization or permanent appointment for any post and their continuance was co-terminus with the project.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners claim that they may not be replaced by another set of contractual employees, is also not a correct statement of fact and Mr. R.D Rastogi, ASG, on instructions, submitted that no other person has been employed in place of the petitioners and as such, petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the grievance that they are sought to be be replaced by another set of contractual employees.
Dr.Shivendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners, in his rejoinder submitted that financial sanction of the project is given each year and as such, the petitioners were continued since 2016 on year to year basis and if new project for the year 2019-20 was sanctioned, the respondents could not have (Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 09:09:54 PM) (6 of 7) [CW-9188/2019] issued the impugned order, discontinuing the services of the petitioners.
Learned counsel also referred to the averments made in the para 8 of the rejoinder that employees of the previous project were continued in new project except the petitioners and as such, the action of the respondents is required to be declared bad and the interim order passed by this Court on 27.5.2019 needs to be confirmed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that appointment of the petitioners was in a particular project and such project has come to an end on 31.03.2019. This Court further finds that the respondents have stated that no other person in the same project is being continued and the petitioners are not being replaced by another set of contractual employees.
This Court further finds that the staffing pattern of the project for the year 2019-20 also does not have any post of Data Entry Operator/Office Assistant against which the petitioner No. 1 could have been continued. This Court further finds that one post of MTS is said to be occupied by some other person and as such in a new project also, the post of MTS does not seem to be available.
This Court finds that the petitioners who are employed on contract basis had a right to continue as per terms of their appointment till completion of the project and once the projects known as SCSP and AMHCP have completed their term of period, the petitioners cannot as a matter of right demand that they should be continued.
(Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 09:09:54 PM)
(7 of 7) [CW-9188/2019] This Court further finds that the right of contractual employee is protected to the extent that he may not be replaced by similar kind of employment given to other persons on contract basis.
This theory will not be applicable in the present facts of the case, as the project under which petitioners were working, had come to an end.
This Court does not find any reason to confirm the order passed on 27.05.2019 and accordingly, the order dt.27.05.2019 is vacated and the application filed by the respondents for vacation of the stay order, is allowed.
List this case for final disposal on 21.09.2020.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Monika/Sakshi/142 (Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 09:09:54 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)