Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Gyanwati Netam vs Union Of India on 13 June, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
WRIT PETITION No.14144 OF 2018
BETWEEN:-
1 SUSHIL PRASAD VERMA AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI
MANOHARLAL VERMA
OCCUPATION, CONTRACT
TEACHER, GIRLS SHIKSHA PARISAR,
BIJAG, DINDORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2 KUNWAR SINGH MARVI AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O SHRI AMARSAY
MARVI OCCUPATION, CONTRACT
TEACHER, GIRLS SHIKSHA PARISAR,
BIJAG, DINDORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3 RAMCHARAN DHURVE AGED 37
YEARS S/O SHRI DADURAM SINGH
KUNWAR SINGH MARVI AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O SHRI AMARSAY
MARVI OCCUPATION, CONTRACT
TEACHER, GIRLS SHIKSHA PARISAR,
BIJAG, DINDORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4 DHARMENDRA SINGH MARAVI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O SHRI
PREETAM SINGH MARAVI
OCCUPATION CONTRACVT
TEACHER, GIRLS SHISKSHA
PARISHAR, BIJAG, DINDORI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5 SMT. RASHMI MARAVI AGED ABOUT
33 YEARS W/O SHRI KOMAL SINGH
MARAVI OCCUPATION CONTRACT
TEACHER GIRLS SHISKSHA PARISAR
BIJAG, DINDORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN VERMA - ADVOCATE)
-VERSUS-
1 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
SECRETARY, JAN JATI KARYA
MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI
2 COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL
DEVELOPMENT SATPUDA BHAWAN,
DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
3 THE SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE
AND ASHRAM EDUCATION
INSTITUTE, SATPUDA BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4 COLLECTOR, DISTRICT DINDORI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL
DEVELOPMENT, DINDORI
6 BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
BLOCK BAJAG, DISTRICT DINDORI.
-RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJESHWAR RAO - GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No.14146 OF 2018
BETWEEN:-
1 SIYARAM MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS S/O SHRI CHHOTELAL
MEHRA OCCUPATION COMPUTER
CONTRACT TEACHER, GIRLS
SHIKSHA PARISAR JAITPUR,
SHAHDOL (M.P.)
2 SMT. SARASWATI NAMDEO, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O SHIV KUMAR
NAMDEO OCCUPATION COMPUTER
CONTRACT TEACHER, GIRLS
SHKSHA PARISAR JAITPUR,
SHAHDOL (M.P.)
....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI NILESH KOTECHA - ADVOCATE)
VERSUS_
1 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
SECRETARY, JAN JATI KARYA
MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI
2 COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL
DEVELOPMENT SATPUDA BHAWAN,
DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
3 THE SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE
AND ASHRAM EDUCATION
INSTITUTE, SATPUDA BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL
DEVELOPMENT, SHAHDOL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI REJESHWAR RAO -
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No.17362 OF 2018
BETWEEN:-
1 SMT. GYANWATI NETAM AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS W/O SHRI RAVI
SHANKAR NETAM, OCCUPATION-
COOK, GIRLS SHIKSHA PARISAR,
BAJAG, DISTRICT DINDORI, (M.P.)
2 SMT. PANCHWATI PARASTE AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS W/O SHRI
RAJENDRA PARASTE OCCUPATION-
PEON, GIRLS SHKSHA PARISAR
BAJAG, DISTRICT DINDORI (M.P.)
....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN VERMA - ADVOCATE)
VERSUS_
1 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
SECRETARY, JAN JATI KARYA
MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI
2 COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL
DEVELOPMENT SATPUDA BHAWAN,
DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
3 THE SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE
AND ASHRAM EDUCATION
INSTITUTE, SATPUDA BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4 COLLECTOR, DISTRICT DINDORI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL
DEVELOPMENT, DINDORI (M.P.)
6 BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
BLOCK BAJAG, DISTRICT DINDORI.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJESHWAR RAO - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER RESERVED ON : 14.02.2023
ORDER PASSED ON : 13.06.2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for order coming
on for pronouncement this day, this Court passed the following order:-
ORDER
Since all these three Writ Petitions involve common issue to be decided, they have been heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
For the sake of convenience, the facts are being adumbrated from Writ Petition No.14144 of 2018.
Writ Petition No.14144 of 2018:
The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:
(i) That, this Hon. Court may be pleased to quash the oral impugned order dat5ed 20.03.2017 Annexure P/ 10 and also maintain the absorption order dated 18.01.2017 Annexure P/8 and continue the petitioners as Teacher in Kanya Parisar Bajag Dindori with all consequential benefits.
(ii) Any other writ or writs order or order, order or orders, direction or directions through just and proper may also be issued.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that Government of India initiated an scheme for education of girls in poor literacy districts and for this post, teacher on contract basis were called by way of advertisement for Girls Parisar in Dindori District. In response thereto, petitioners participated in the recruitment process and were duly selected vide appointment order dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure P-4). The said appointment was contractual in nature which is reflected from the appointment order itself. They continued with their services since 2009 till 2017.
3. It appears from the pleadings that because of insufficiency of funds from the Central Government, a conscious decision was taken in the meeting headed by the concerned Ministry that the 13 Girls Parisar sanctioned by the Union Government will not take any further grant from Central Government but that will be absorbed under the Kanya Parisar Scheme of State Government. It further appears that after discussion regarding service conditions of petitioners, order dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure P-10) was passed in which services of petitioners were not continued and dispensed with. Therefore, this petition has been preferred.
4. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner that order dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Collector Dindori indicates that petitioners were absorbed by the respondents once the Central Government stopped giving fund to run the Girls Parisar under the aegis of Central Government. Therefore, after absorption on 18.01.2017, petitioners cannot be removed vide impugned order dated 20.03.2017. Approach of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Petitioners were appointed on contract basis but thereafter, they continued for 8 years and therefore, they were partly absorbed in the scheme. Such contractual employees cannot be ousted in a slipshod manner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the order dated 02.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.21766/2018 and seeks parity. In the said case, the petitioners were Data Entry Operators who after some years of their services were terminated. On being challenged such termination, indulgence has been shown by this Court, of which learned counsel for the petitioners seeks parity.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer on the ground that initially a decision was taken to open Kanya Parisar in Tribal area where the literacy rate was very low and Collector was appointed as President of the society established for the aforesaid purpose and said the society had to work under the Madhya Pradesh Tribal Welfare Residential and Ashram Education Institution Society, Bhopal. Said society was registered with the Registrar, Firms and Societies, under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. Thereafter, due to paucity of funds, the said premises in which petitioners were working was adjusted in the Kanya Parisar being run by the State Government.
7. Since the Scheme was not implemented under the aegis of State Government and it was in the form of Non-Govenmental Organization (NGO), therefore, their services could not have been continued. It is further submitted that their appointments were contractual in nature and they were not required because said Parisar was closed. Thus, their services were dispensed with. No arbitrariness or illegality has been committed and thus he prayed for dismissal of petition.
8. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
9. This is the case where petitioners who were appointed as contractual employees for three years continued to perform their duties for almost 8 years for the period 2009 to 2017.
10. It appears that Central Government wanted to raise the literacy level of tribal districts of State of Madhya Pradesh and therefore, a Scheme in the Mission Mode was launched under the aegis of Society working under Tribal Welfare Department. As the scheme was for a particular mission, therefore, by very existence, it was temporal in nature.
11. It appears that due to paucity of funds, State Government decided to discontinue with the said scheme and undertaken the project under its wings for implementation through already existing Kanya Parishar (Girls' Premises). Thereafter, contractual services of petitioners were discontinued.
12. Perusal of the appointment order of the petitioners dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure P/4) indicates that it was a contractual appointment for three years and subject to extension. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that they were appointed against any regular post as was the case of petitioners in W.P. No. 21766/2018 (Rajeev Singh and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. And others), as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, giving any direction for absorption of petitioners with the Kanya Parishar run by the society registered under Society Regitrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 is far-fetched because that establishment must be having its own staff pattern and personnel to run the Kanya Premises. It is for the employer to decide the suitability of the employees and/or their absorption if need arises so. This Court cannot substitute its view.
13. Even otherwise, termination of the services of a Government servant, employed under an agreement, in accordance with terms of such agreement is a recognized form of termination but it does not amount to penalty within the meaning of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Rule 10 of CCA Rules 1966 can be suitably relied upon to refer such contingency.
10. Penalties.- The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely :-
Minor penalties:-
(i) Censure;
(ii) Withholding of his promotion;
(iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of order;
(iv) withholding of increments of pay or stagnation allowance;
Major Penalties :-
(v) reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not, the Government servant will earn increments of pay or the stagnation allowance, as the case may be, during the period, on such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the further increments of his pay or stagnation allowance;
Note. - The expression "reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay" shall also include reduction of pay from the stage of pay drawn by a Government servant on account of grant of stagnation allowance if any].
(vi) reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the Government servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service;
(vii) compulsory retirement;
(viii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government;
(ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government;.
[x x x] Explanation.- The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule, namely :-
(i) XXX XXX XXX (ii) XXX XXX XXX (iii) XXX XXX XXX (iv) XXX XXX XXX (v) XXX XXX XXX (vi) XXX XXX XXX (vii) XXX XXX XXX (viii) termination of the services;
(a) of a Government servant appointed on probation, during or at the end of the period of his probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation; or
(b) of a temporary Government servant appointed until further orders on the ground that his services are no longer required; or
(c) of a Government servant, employed under an agreement, in accordance with the terms of such agreement.
14. Perusal of the said provision indicates that in service jurisprudence and in statutory scheme of Service Rules, such contingency of termination of services not amounting to penalty is being envisaged. Therefore, in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot substitute its view regarding absorption of petitioners as tried to be contended by the counsel for the petitioners.
15. Cumulatively, no case for interference is made out. Rusultantly, petition stands dismissed.
(Anand Pathak) Judge Ashish* ASHIS Digitally signed by ASHISH CHAURASIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH H GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=bf81a9adb1da24e4bc7 CHAU b5195154c3d4de08c6bb9303e5 2e2e7e728d9bac85bd3, pseudonym=CA2EA6EDDF504F8 F9C2790FA9A0FD201D0242B64, serialNumber=A926F3CBF979EC A6A4C477577EEDBA3AB4F9459 RASIA 3A930B98DAE1B0AD16F90B5FD , cn=ASHISH CHAURASIA Date: 2023.06.13 18:59:17 -07'00'